ATLANTIC REVISED

[Patrick_Mucci]

Has anyone played Atlantic since the changes made last winter ?

Has anyone played it pre and post changes, and what are your thoughts regarding the changes and the current course ?

[Anthony_Nysse]

Pat,
  What were the changes? I know that they made all their tees square.

[Gene Greco]

Patrick:

     Funny you should bring this up as less than one hour ago I called my friend to make arrangements to do just that - play Atlantic to see what changes were made. Will be playing in about two weeks and if no one responds to your inquiry I will post my findings. With Mr. Ranum at the helm, I'm sure the changes will be super positive.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Anthony,

Besides making all of their tees rectangular/square, they changed the angles of attack on many, providing multiple tees that alter the play/angle of the hole off the tee.
Certain holes have both benign and challenging tees.  

They also did a good deal of work around the greens, eliminating backstops and mounds, and creating fall-off chipping areas.

I also believe that the club is aware of and intends to firm up their approaches.

The greens this weekend putted at about 12-14 and with the breeze turning into a wind, it was certainly a challenge.

Gene,

I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts post changes.
Keep me posted.

If I were starting a club, I'd sure target Bob Ranum as a Super, Super.  But, somehow, I think Atlantic would outbid me to retain his services.  Plus, I believe Atlantic recognizes the respective abilities of their Super and Pro, and treats them so well that they and their families wouldn't want to leave to go anywhere else.

Despite Jesper Parnevik's superior ability (10 shots per round)
I think Atlantic has the best, or one of the best tandems of Supers and Head Professionals in Ranum and Hartmann.

But, that's just my opinion.

P.S.  I wonder what Ranum thinks of the 12th at GCGC.
        I'll have to ask him one of these days.

[redanman]

Patrick

Several of us posted at length on this in June.

Overall?  As the routing now exists and the changes in grass and mowing patterns are extant it is improved. A Siskel and Ebert two thumbs up from this hardass critic.

Surely not enough for those on a mission, though.  The pedigree and all that are wrong, you understand.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Redanman,

I do understand.  

Thanks for the candid reply.

Has anyone else played the course pre and post changes ?

[3-Putt]

Pat -
I am very familiar with Atlantic and wanted to respond to your thread.  On balance, I think the changes are for the better.  In particular, the work behind greens #5, 6, 7, 14 and 17 are a big improvement - the best being the one behind #5 where the backdrop is really the horizon.  

However, I am disappointed with the additional teeing areas.  Prior to the native grasses growing in, they looked like small runway strips to me.  Now that the grasses have come-in, the effect is more subtle but I still find tees like #3 to be obnoxious (how many tees do you need within 5 yards of one another for a 340 yard par 4?).  At a golf course where the average member cannot break 100, I cannot for the life of me understand why they needed to add length to the course.  After all, I don't think we have 5 members who can honestly break 80 from the middle tees.

One has to wonder about these things.  Atlantic did not fall out of the top 100 because it was too short.  Rather, it fell out of the top 100 because it never belonged.  Most people I bring there come back with the same criticisms / concerns:
1) The Fescue with the bluegrass undreneath is terrible
2) Many of the holes look the same
3) With a few exceptions, the course has no "character" holes
4) The bunkers are in no way strategic
5) The routing is poorly conceived

If we are honest with one another for a moment, Rees did an "average job" with a pretty good piece of land.  Don't get me wrong, Pat.  I like playing the course.  However, when I think about the money it cost (over $225 k all in for a membership) and the end result, I just cannot think about Atlantic the way I think about Sand Hills, Bandon, Kohler, Friar's, the River Course, the Ocean Course and so on and so on.

Long story short, I like the changes to the approach shots but I still think that Atlantic is what it is: a good golf course that has an identity crisis.  To quote an old poet:

"Above the good how far; but far below the great..."

[Patrick_Mucci]

3-Putt,

You bring up some good points.

I especially agree that something has to be done to eradicate the Bluegrass from the Fescue.  It is not only difficult to find your ball, but wrist breaking to extricate it.  It is overly punitive.

I'm not sure what you mean by "character" holes.  Perhaps if you could define that term I'd be better equiped to discuss the topic with you.

With respect to the tees, I never like the amoeba shaped or free form tees and feel that the rectangular/square tees are a great improvement.  

I was opposed to adding tees to # 3 and # 11 feeling that they were terrific short holes just as they were.

I do feel that the number of tees were created for the primary purpose of increasing the diversity of the angles, the strategies off the tee on each hole.

With respect to the bunkers and lack of strategy, I assume you're talking about fairway, not greenside bunkers.  
If I'm incorrect please let me know.

I find that many of the fairway bunkers are strategic.
Remember, the fairways are fairly generous.
Holes # 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, are just a few that possess strategic fairway bunkering.  

I've always been a proponent of the routing I listed above.

Certainly, you can't compare the land at Atlantic, with and without all it's evironmental pitfalls with the land at Sand Hills, Bandon and Friar's Head.  

I believe that the fine tuning of the course should be ongoing,
I especially believe that the approaches up to 30 yards shy of each green should be dug out and replaced with a sandier soil mixture with a refitting of the greenside irrigation heads, such that the approaches mirror the greens in firm consistency.

There is nothing wrong with taking pride in your golf course and trying to improve upon it.  Is there a fixation with being in the top 100, I think so, but that exists at Pine Tree and a lot of other courses as well.  It's not the worst thing in the world
Before Atlantic, Maidstone, NGLA and Shinnecock were the only courses in the area, and those are pretty difficult shadows to live in, and to be constantly compared to.

Remember too, that it's doubtful that Maidstone and NGLA could be built today.

[George Pazin]

I think it's great that they are looking for ways to improve, especially considering it's the original architect who's making the changes.

Patrick, you mentioned on another thread that the routing has changed, or at least, the order of the holes. 2 questions: Have the settled on an order, or are they still experimenting? What do you like better about your proposed order of holes? Stronger finish? Greater flow?

Sorry, guess that's more than 2 questions.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

I think they have settled on a final routing, but I can't speak for the club.

I just liked the feel and flow of my routing, the balanced nines and think the finish is more than adequate, especially for their membership.

[3-Putt]

Pat -
I hear you and appreciate your response.  A few thoughts:

1) As for "character" holes, I was thinking of holes that you really remember after a round.  And, perhaps it's just me, but I find that Atlantic has a homogenity to it that makes it somewhat uninspired.  For example, when someone goes to play Friar's Head how can you not remember the 7th green, the 10th tee, the 14th tee, the 15th tee, the 18th tee.  If someone is a real golf nut, how can you not look at #5 and say my gosh, what a short par 4 this is....

2) As for the bunkering, I think that #9 at Atlantic is a silly hole - for the average member.  Where can they hit their approach?  99% of the members cannot reach that green in 2 and the sliver of fairway that Rees has given you is harder to hit then the darn green itself.  How 'bout #10, one of the silliest par 4s in golf.  Why should someone be asked to hit a driver 250 - 270 to a fairway that is literally 15 yds wide and then have to bust a 200 - 220 yard shot up a hill to a green that is protected by par 5 kind of bunkers.  The hole would be better if they just pulled the damn bunkers out period.  How bout #6, a par 5 that it totally defenseless (other than the bowl) but has a mile of sand and mounds that just create a maintenance nightmare.  I don't know, Pat, but sometimes I feel Rees just throws his sand blobs down and there is not a lot of thought behind it (I'm sure that is naive of me to think).

3) On balance, I think the changes were for the better.  However, I think the club has some big issues that need to be addressed properly (and that does not mean just throw $ at it).  The Fescue / Blue Grass issue is a big one as they continue to cut it back from the fairways - therby reducing the difficulty and detracting from its beauty.  I also think that Kenny Bakst made a good point: crossovers, done well, are potentially enhancing.  However, the walk from 16 to 17 and from 13 to 14, I think, fall short.

But, I do believe that the club took a step forward this past year....

[Patrick_Mucci]

3-Putt,

You can't compare the property and views at Atlantic to Friar's Head.  Friar's Head is a unique piece of property, on the water, dunes and flatlands that has been waiting for a golf course.  Atlantics property, with its environmental constraints, was hardly ideal, but that's just my opinion.

I think the views from # 1 tee, from # 3 tee, from # 4 tee, from # 5 tee, from # 8 tee, from # 11 tee, from # 12 tee, from # 13 tee, from # 15 tee, from # 17 tee are all pretty impressive.

As to # 9, I agree with you, and have always been a proponent of having the entire hole as fairway, without the rough and pinched in front.

As to # 10, from the begining I felt the left green side bunker should be reduced or eliminated.  The push back I got was that it was a hole that places demands on long iron play.  
I still feel the bunker should be shrunk or eliminated opening up the front on a long hole.

As to # 6, I love the green and approach, and, from the right side tee, the fairway bunker tempts you to carry it, which I did Saturday, leaving me a three iron in to a treacherous opening.  I think, like # 7 at NGLA that the real test begins at about 150 yards from the green.

I think two main issues remain to be dealt with.
1.  The bluegrass
2.  Providing firm approaches

I can tolerate the walk from # 16 to # 17, and think that based on my suggested routing, the walk from the 13th green should be the walk from the 18th green to the clubhouse.

But, that's just my opinion.

P.S The breeze to wind make it fun to play

[SVEN]

Pat,
I have seen the changes and I think it was a dramatic improvement. I think the new tee complexes have given each hole its own identity. Instead of having free form mounds with flat tops to begin your journey down each hole you are now greeted with defined starts to each hole. The old tees were difficult to locate also. You seemed to wander through fescue until you reached a colored tee marker and then looked around to see which way you had to hit the ball to get to the fairway.

The only bad thing I feel is that some of the complexes are too elevated. They should have been brought lower to create a little mystery in some tee shots, creating blind areas, and also giving the course an even more traditional feel.

As for the green complexes, reducing the number of backstops has made the approach shots much more difficult to judge visually. The bent pockets installed have also increased the variety of greenside shotmaking. Although I feel the 6th hole bentgrass area should have continued around to the left and connected to the fairway. This should also be done on the left side of #5 green. How wonderful would it be to have a choice of 3 to 4 different shots to get close to the hole instead of being forced to use the lob out of the bluegrass.

Some future suggestions would be to eliminate the manufactured fairway contours and square them off to continue Atlantic's transformation towards a more traditional feeling golf course. The artificial mounding should also be enhanced by some bunkering to create some visual interest for each hole. There are many hills and bullocks screaming to be noticed and enhanced.

As for the comparisons to Sand Hills,Kohler,Bandon et al. I don't think Atlantic is competing with them and it's not fair to do so. It's like comparing the 16th @ Islands End with something at Pebble. Also when Atlantic was built it was a modern design for its time. It was a trend. The trend has come and gone but it's still part of architectural history.Even if the new trend is  toward more traditional looking courses. One must look at the past trends and take the good points and not so good points and try and improve future designs.

What do you think. Let me Know.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

I too commented on straightening the fairway lines, I think it would provide for improved play and an improved look.

On the longer holes, such as # 5, converting the heavy rough to closely mown areas has merit.

I liked the tees, and think that they will continue to fine tune the golf course.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I'd like to see some real in depth architectural analysis here!

You started a thread some time ago about "crossovers" and if someone is going to criticize Atlantic for that at least be "unbiased" and criticize Merion too because it has crossovers as well!

I explained in detail the history and evolution of the "crossovers" at Merion and WHY, in my opinion (and almost everyone else who admires the routing progression of Merion), those crossovers are a positive.

I asked you to do the same with Atlantic since that was the gist of your post about bias in criticizing Atlantic for that (crossovers) and not Merion!

So why don't you do the same and do your part (since you started that thread) and tell us what you know about the "crossovers" at Atlantic? Why were they done in the first place, how were they changed, did they make the course better or worse and why?

That's what discussion of the types of threads you start should be about, but you have to do more than just ask questions--I think you should be the first to explain yourself and your opinions on the issue!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think that would make an excellent thread.  

Why don't you start a new one rather than hijack this one.

When individuals criticize a golf course for a particular feature, and conveniently exclude another golf course with the exact same feature, it's bias.  

I know it when I see it.

How come you, a FLYNN LOVER, never raised one voice of dissent on the alterations that forever demolished the FLYNN design at Atlantic City CC. ?  

Were you BIASED or just afraid to criticize the guru Doak ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

What do you mean hijack this thread? You asked if anyone had played Atlantic pre or post changes? Well, my answer is no, I've never played it pre or post changes which means I never played it at all. So I don't know what the changes are. Matter of fact, I've never said a single thing about Atlantic--ever!

But why don't you give it a shot at telling us what those changes are pre to post or do you want to keep everyone guessing.

If it has anything to do with crossovers that would be a nice place to start--particularly after I explained why the crossovers at Merion are that way. So If you want to find out why there may be no bias here let's get into the details of the crossovers at both courses.

Maybe what you'd really like to hear to your question in the first post is people to say that they have not played the course both pre and post and then you can reply that they shouldn't comment on this discussion at all.

That's fine by me personally since I've never even seen a photo of Atlantic so I can't say a thing about it's architecture.

As for Atlantic City, I think I played the course years ago in some GAP tournament but I can't remember the course (if at that time it was the original Flynn course which I doubt) and I did spend about half a day there about a year ago with Kye Goalby who did shaping for Doak there. It looked OK to me but again I don't know what to compare it to previously since I can't really remember the architecture before Doak & Co got there.

You ask me why I don't criticize (question) the guru Doak and therefore am I BIASED?

You really are nuts, Pat! Not only do you seem not to read very well, apparently you don't seem to read at all if you think I've never questioned or criticized Doak!

The three courses of his that I know--Stonewall, Pacific Dunes and Stonewall2 (now under construction) I've questioned a number of things and Doak has answered them!

[redanman]

A quick comment on an earlier comment

Why so many tees so clost together on a short par 4?  (OR any par 3 for that matter?)  Maintenance.  Hard to have too muc teeing ground where irons are used.

As an example, loosely related) anyone who has ever played Lehigh should know that the entire practice area teeing ground (Which is massive) is destroyed at the end of the season.  Just as the par 3 "back tees" at any tournament turn to bare dirt with just 4 days of everyone playing the same tees.

Too many tees?  

Aesthetics for aesthetics sake rears its ugly head.  

AS for The Atlantic, there are a few holes that are a little ho-hum (The old #3, I forget the new #, forgive me as I rush) but there is plenty of quality.  Is it a top 15-20 modern course as compared to with an earlier list on this thread, no, but probably top 30, the next tier.  I put it ahead of Victoria National, for example.

NO time for lengthy posts these days (This is one for me just now!)

[orthojerk]

redanman,

I would suggest you hire your publisist/rater friend Andrew to start another secret email spamming to raise the rating of Atlantic.   Worked at Lehigh last year but of course that was done without your approval.

[Mike_Cirba]

orthojerk;

Appropriate name, apparently.

Don't comment on matters that you obviously know nothing about.  

[orthojerk]

Mike,

If the spam goes out and the ranking goes up, what is the problem?   When does the activities of a rater so bastardize the process that a resignation is in order?  When does the credibility of the process become more important than the feelings of one individual?   Oh, I forgot these rankings don't cost people jobs or hurt the bottom line of clubs. Its just all for fun and comps.

[Mike_Cirba]

orthojerk;

Once again, you have no idea of the facts here.  

You are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.  

Let me put it simply, because this is clearly NOT the place to be discussing this.  Your version of what happened is erroneous...pure and simple.  

redanman was not even the host of the rater in question, nor did they play together.  'Nuff said.  

If you have a question or issue over this, you should be dealing with those you are accusing directly, and not under some pseudonym.

[BV aka redanman]

All I can say about the Atlantic is that I am unswayable and unbuyable when it comes to my opinion.  I am a hardass and treat every course and architect equally contemptuously   , just ask the archies that I have played with.

Atlantic is a fine modern course, well served by its recent changes.

The experience of playing there is also quite enjoyable which has no effect on my objective opinion of the golf course.  I am the guy who ignores the ocean at Pebble, you know.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I completely agree with your comments to Pat Mucci about the role of someone who starts a thread.

What exactly is the point of asking people about the Atlantic pre and post changes if Pat doesn't spell out his own views?

Does it mean Pat himself hasn't seen the course pre and post?

Does it mean Pat thinks the club tried to make improvements but really didn't succeed?

Who knows?

I'm not a fan of personalizing discussion here, but lately I've begun to wonder if Pat has become the James Carville of GolfClubAtlas.

"It's all about sex", Carville used to say in defense of Bill Clinton. "Sex, sex, sex.....that all Republicans ever talk about" Carville repeated over and over again (hoping we would all forget that there really were other issues involved).

With Pat it's not sex, sex, sex. Rather, it is BIAS, BIAS, BIAS. Every issue gets presented as if it is a matter of BIAS, against Rees and for some "guru".

Everything's BIAS. End of discussion!

In all this, Pat has forgotten that the thread is about changes made at the Atlantic. Frankly, I doubt many people here have seen the course both pre and post changes. (I've only seen pre.) Most likely, Pat has seen the before and after. Most likely he is better informed to answer his own question than 98% of the people here.

So, I agree. Wouldn't it make sense for Pat to share with us why the club felt changes were necessary? If he knows, why not share with us how or why the problem was created in the first place? Why not share knowledge of member reactions to the changes?

[TEPaul]

Tim:

Because Pat is of the unique and peculiar mindset that it's better to state some opinion (which he has told us a number of times on here may not be his own personal opinion) just to see if those that answer it (Pat's opinion which may not be his own) is in some way inconsistent or biased!

You see, Pat is inherently addicted to the constant use of "devil's advocacy" and he clearly can't get enough of it in everyday life so he needs to create situations on here where he can get into more of it!

Eventually it will be likely that Pat will disagree with his own original statement (that is providing any of us ever agree with that original statement of his which isn't very likely) and then of course we will be able to prove that he is even inconsistent and biased against himself (that is in his own peculiar way of reasoning although not ours)!

At that point Pat will do one of a number of things; He will not post on that thread any longer or he will change or alter the original subject somehow or he will somehow come to see the folly of his ways or that at least all of us clearly see the folly of his ways.

We'll get him eventually and actually my goal in all this is to have Pat admitted to about a five year, thrice weekly program with our own Dr. Katz!