[mark chalfant]

Andrew mine  are :

Center  2,8, and 9

West  3 and 8

East 2,3, and  7

details later

[Matt_Ward]

Andrew:

I'd have to say the five'n dime hole on the Center has got be in the mix - a great short par-4 with a multitude of options. I also like the 3rd on the same nine -- you need to work the ball from right-to-left and the green, I believe it's the biggest at RCC, is also neatly contoured in a subtle manner.

On the East Nine -- I really do like 3. Demanding par-5 and I see the green on that hole as being one of the very best at RCC.

On the West Nine -- hard to beat #5 -- losing the tree to the left side of the green was more of a plus than many might believe. I see this hole consistently underrated because getting an approach shot to stop near to the hole is very difficult.

[Mike Policano]

Andrew,

My favorite holes:

East - 3 for the reasons Matt layed out

5 excellent green complex - uphill approach, false front, well-bunkered left and right, severe left to right pitch and strong back to front. Tough to get close to and a tough two-putt for those that hole out their putts.

7. Strong par 4 - 470 yd dog leg right with uphill approach to a green that repels short shots to a left to right green.

For Center, I go with 6 as Matt said and 9. 9 is only 410 but the green sits at angle an pitches hard left to right. It is a tough green to get the approach close and the approach is heavily influenced by position in the fairway.

The 410 yd 5th is my favorite on West. The tee shot provides options with a cross bunker about 140 out to a large elevated green with green internal contours not typical of RCC. A real tough par given the green pitch and contours.

Cheers

[Matt_Ward]

Mark C:

Good of you to mention Forsgate / Banks Course since you inserted it into the mix at the very beginning of this thread.

What really amazes me is that Doak gave the course a "7" in "Confidential Guide" long before the upgrades were made to the course in terms of turf conditioning and a few extra yards on a few holes -- most notably the 18th.

The Banks Course is rich in so many architectural elements and often times I really believe it's overall location in NJ -- right off NJ Tpke Exit 8A but far enough away from the masses has caused the course to often get lost in the shuffle.

RCC is a superb layout but I think it would make for an interesting head-to-head comparison. My vote would go to The Banks Course by a nose.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think you've all underestimated # 2 Center.

It's a wonderful Par 5.

With a unique green complex and surrounds.

Ridgewood may have one of the best sets of unaltered Par 5's anywhere.

How much more difficult would # 4 Center be if there were no trees behind the green ?

[AndrewB]

I'd have to say the five'n dime hole on the Center has got be in the mix - a great short par-4 with a multitude of options. I also like the 3rd on the same nine -- you need to work the ball from right-to-left and the green, I believe it's the biggest at RCC, is also neatly contoured in a subtle manner.

Now that's interesting, because I don't see that many options on 6C (Five and dime).  The shot to the near-end of the fairway is so short and probably even easier than laying back (closer to the bunkers) that it's a no-brainer to me.  I also don't consider going for the green a realistic option (so much so that I almost forgot to say so).  I did cite it as my pick for Center as well, but for other reasons.  Do you mind describing the options that you see?

I'm also surprised to hear you mention 3C since I think that hole would gain as much (or more) in the way of options from tree removal or trimming as 8W.  The shot to challenge the left side and get farther down the fairway (without running through) requires a significant hook and isn't something people try, in my experience.  Clearing out some of the trees blocking the line of play down the left-hand side of the fairway would encourage an aggressive line that challenges the bend of the fairway that occurs as it starts to drop.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts, Matt.  Thanks.

[Bill Brightly]

Extending the fairway on 3 E was a great change. Nothing worse than being forced to play short beacuse you run out of fairway on a par 5. However, if if I crank a drive, i think the green comlex is too severe to go for it in two. With three distinct tiers, you need to be on the proper section to make birdie, and I'll do tthat more often with a wedge fro  the fairway. No way I want to be hitting bunkers shots to these small green sections from either the left or front right bunker.

Matt, 8 W has a great green, too. Put it this way: wouldn't it be a great short par 3 if you played it from 130-160?

Mike and Andrew,

Don't you think 7 E is one of the best holes on the property? If you really hit a good drive, you are left with an extremely challenging uphill seecond shot (200 to 220) that MUST be bounced in fom the top left, almost a reverse Redan shot, right?

But wouldn't this hole benefit from taking out trees on the left, rather than the forced draw that the trees now create?

[Mike Policano]

Bill, I agree with you that 7 East is one of the best par 4's at RCC.  

I argued about the tree at the back of the left side fairway bunker that serves as a double hazard with a buddy.

I checked a picture of the 1935 Ryder Cup and sure enough that same tree is there.

I think the hole would provide more options if the tree was removed and the fairway extended behind the bunker as was proposed by Gil Hanse.

Andrew,

Dave uses a driver on nickle & dime (6 center) two out of three times he playes the hole. One of the last times he played it, he landed on the green on a fly and held the green. He two putted for birdie. So, for him and probably Matt Ward, there is an option.

Cheers

[Greg Stebbins]

My favorite holes on each nine:

East: #5, Great as is, but it would be really something if the tee was moved about 30 yards back to put the fairway bunkers in play and require a mid-iron approach.

Center:  #6 is just a great hole.  While it does not have a ton of options as Andrew mentioned, it is rare that one hole can require the player to have every type of wedge shot.  

West:  #5 is now great after the greenside tree on the left was removed.  

Bill Brightly,

I agree with you on #7 east.  This is a world class long par 4 as designed, however the trees on the left have taken everything out of the hole.  It is really dissapointing that these trees have not been addressed.  

Andrew,

I agree with you about #3 center.  Another example of uncontrolled tree growth that forces the player into target golf.  

Pat,

All of the trees except one have been removed behind #4 center.  It is now very close to being a skyline green complex.  Now if they could just remove that mound behind the green that was never supposed to be there!  

[Matt_Ward]

Andrew:

The five'n dime hole always makes the longer hitters think about "what if" I nail a drive and can get home in one big blow. If someone is a short hitter and that option is not available it's likely you and others may see the hole as being a bit limited.

In so many ways the hole reminds me of the same feeling when standing on the tee of other comparable short holes in American golf like the 7th at Olympic / Lake and the 17th at Oakmont.

You just feel like an automatic birdie should be placed on the card and given such willful disrespect the hole makes you pay for even the slightest of errors.

Laying back, of course, is an option but when do that you must play from a partially sloped fairway to a small target with little effective landing area.

In regard to 3C I see the turning point of the fairway as fair game for golfers to overcome. Turning the ball from right-to-left is a shotmakers opportunity to face and handle. Let me point out that a number of competitors in the Sr. PGA event decided to play a fade over the tree line -- if memory serves, I believe no less than Nicklaus himself did this on a few occasions during the event.

Working the ball is an even more demanding skill with today's clubs and balls. Should there a thinning out of additional trees? That's something for the club to consider. Last time I played the hole I didn't see the real need but it's something to ponder.

Bill B:

8W as a par-3 only further demonstrates to me what's lacking from the tee shot and 2nd shot dimensions. If the hole only gets significantly better when played from the distance you indicated then what came before that point needs to be examined for what the hole is missing.

Mike P:

Your point on 7E is spot on and a hole I forgot to include as one of the best at RCC.

Greg:

Excellent point concerning the mound behind the green at 4C.

[Bill Brightly]

Matt,

I just accept the fact that there is nothing wrong with a par 5 that is a full 3-shot hole. You seem to "take points off" if it can't be reached in two. I think that is wrong.

8 W requires two really good shots just to get in position to properly approach the green. How many par 5's can you say that about?

If you hit a good straight drive down the left side, or a nice draw, you can slightly cut the corner, which makes your second shot much easier. This aggressive play off the tee(you risked the OB and woods on the left) rewards you by leaving just a long iron/rescue club to a nice spot to approach the green, or you can continue to be more aggressive with a fairway wood to get as close to the green as you can.

But if you bail out right on your tee shot (as I often do) you need to hit a low, cut (or sliced) 3-wood under and around the big tree just to get in position to hit the green with a mid iron. (Seems this is how I usually end up playing the hole

And the third shot requires great precision. I almost put it in the hole last time I played there, only to find that I left myself a nasty 12 foot downhill, left-to-right putt. Birdie from there is a pure accident, I was protecting par all the way, and made the 3-foot comeback, thinking "get me off this green!"

In any event, the green complex is really superb, it actually resembles the 8th at Forsgate. Both require very precise third shots that better end up in the right spot on the green or you will 3-putt more times than not. Hey, I am a Banks guy, but I think there is more drama in getting into position on RW's 8 W than Forsgate's #8.

[Matt_Ward]

Bill:

I don't see the value in nearly all instances of the required three-shot par-5 holes which almost always leaves the proverbial approach from 100 or so yards.

One other thing -- re-read Greg's comments on the size of the tree line down the left side of 8W. Why not cut them back to allow for the Cape dimension he outlined? It would then bring into play a major decision on whether to cut the corner or not.

Bill, the issue for par-5 holes should be not to wait until the 3rd shot but to start the strategic dimensions the minute you arrive at the tee. 8W, as constituted now, effectively limits the tee shot elements. You must play to a particular position and then go from there. It's limited.

Even you yourself mentioned in your comments that you can "slightly cut the corner.' C'mon Bill, when you say "slightly" you've got to be joking. There's not enough bait for a player of stature to go for such shot when the only net return is a "slight" gain at best.

If there's any hole crying out for the wood chopper it's 8W - especially the left side.

Couple of other points -- I never said the 3rd shot is not crucial or set up well given the land configurations and green site. But, as I referenced previously, the green at 8W is a much more conventional play when compared with the 9th at Alpine which Tillie also created. Please don't assert that I am minimizing the three-putt possibility there -- but it's even more likely at other Tillie designs -- the 9th at Alpine being a solid case study.

Let me also rebut your comments / re: 8th at The Banks Course / Forsgate. While I am not a fan of automatic three-shot par-5 holes I see this one as being one of NJ's best examples of this type -- throw in the 17th at Baltusrol Lower. The tee shot must hit the right side of the fairway to take advantage of the slope which bends right-to-left. It is uphill all the way and the simple facts that golfers know this can often mean an impulse to hit even harder. Should you draw or pull the shot the left rough is absolutely the last place you want to be. The green site is outstanding -- being elevated with the very DEEP left bunker swallowing the slightest pull. You also have a green that is nearly divided into two different sections.

One other thing -- the 8th is neatly positioned in its routing and is superbly located prior to the 9th -- a completely different type hole that favors an aggressive play to get there in two blows.

I also enjoy the 8th at Forsgate because there is no intrusive quality of trees that have overstepped their role as one sees with 8W at RCC.

Bill, 8W is a fine hole -- I just don't see all the elements of unique options that would make it, in my mind, an outstanding hole. Sharpening a few axes would be a real plus, IMHO.

 

[AndrewB]

Mike,

Dave sure must have gotten a lot longer since the last time I played with him.  What tees does he go at the green from?  From the back tees that's a 290 carry uphill, probably playing over 310.  There are many long hitters that would have trouble making that, and the way the hole is designed it's almost guaranteed you'll be in a much worse spot if you miss just short rather than 60 yards short.  I see that option as reserved for the exceptionally long player.

Matt,

I'm curious, why do you feel that turning point of the fairway is something that's "fair game for golfers to overcome" on 3C, but not on 8W?  Does the amount of bend on each hole change the issue?  At what point does it go from a "shotmakers opportunity to face and handle" to a hole that dictates the line of play?  Is it that one is a par four and the other a par five, and your opinions about how each type of hole should be designed?  I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm genuinely curious.

I also disagree with the following statement:

There's not enough bait for a player of stature to go for such shot when the only net return is a "slight" gain at best.

Let me repeat myself and say that I think you're underestimating the advantage gained from being on the left hand side of the fairway on 8W.  If you don't mind, please go back and reread what I wrote about the options from the tee and the advantage one gains.  If you disagree, which you apparently do, I'd like to hear why.

Regarding 6C, I see three major differences between it and the seventh hole on Olympic's Lake course that make driving the green much less of an option on 6C.  First, 6C plays much more uphill from the tee to the green.  Second, the area just short of the seventh green is fairway where one has a reasonable approach shot, so missing short is not that bad; this is not the case on 6C at all.  Lastly, on 6C the area just short of the green is a steep incline with rough and bunkers that you can't run the ball through, making the shot all carry.  The steep incline on Lake's seventh occurs at the beginning of the hole and the only rough short of the green borders the greenside bunkers, so the landing area will allow for run out when it's firm.  I've gotten a tee shot into the front bunkers on the Lake's seventh, but I doubt I'd ever come within 40 yards of the green on 6C and I'd be in deep rough.

[AndrewB]

Greg,

East: #5, Great as is, but it would be really something if the tee was moved about 30 yards back to put the fairway bunkers in play and require a mid-iron approach.

I guess it's a better hole for me than you because those fairway bunkers are in play and I am generally hitting a mid-iron into that green.

Do you think they should have moved the fairway bunkers farther out when they moved them a few years ago?  That might not work out so well for play from the tees farther up.

Isn't the area directly behind that tee the swampy area where the 4E green was originally supposed to go?

[AndrewB]

Let me point out that a number of competitors in the Sr. PGA event decided to play a fade over the tree line -- if memory serves, I believe no less than Nicklaus himself did this on a few occasions during the event.

For what it's worth, I saw Chi Chi Rodriguez do exactly the same thing on 8W during a practice round in the 1990 US Senior Open.  He turned to the crowd and said, "What sort of shot do you think I should play on this hole?".  A bunch of people said "Hit a hook", to which he responded, "Why would I want to turn the ball towards the trouble, I'm going to hit a fade and turn the ball away from the trouble.".  Then, he stood up there and did exactly that.

I don't know if he did that during the tournament rounds, but he did do it then.

[Bill Brightly]

Matt,

Here is the tee shot, there is still plenty of risk/reward here:



You can hit a safe 230 yard tee shot to the right, but pay the price the rest of the hole. It is a LONG way to the green from the right side, and you definitely have brought the trees on the right in to play, 30-40 yards short of where this photo was taken:

 

Or you can risk the trees and OB on the left with an agressive tee shot to this position:

 

[Matt_Ward]

Andrew:

The turning radius at 8W is much more pronouced than what one encounters at 3C.

Andrew, let's go back a step -- what's the problem with trimming T-R-E-E CITY on the left side to re-create the Cape effect that was there originally. Then the real gamble element of the tee shot would once be in effect.

Better players simply play out to the right center and play the hole in a snooze three-shot fashion. Before you come back and highlight the 3rd shot elements -- I don't disagree with that as have said so MANY TIMES.

In regards to 6C -- when you say the green cannot be driven you must be referring to certain types of players who can't or won't consider it. I know when I have played the hole I have to weigh the issue in going for the green because it's always something for me to consider. For shorter hitters that option may not exist either somewhat or at all.

When you say 6C is that much more uphill - I don't think so. When you say "missing short" on Olympic #7 is not "that bad" I don't agree at all because the pitch is anything but straightforward.

I see all three holes that I mentioned as great examples of short par-4's that keep one's attention.

P.S. One last thing -- if you want to see another grand Tillie par-5 be sure to check out the 14th at Baltimore CC -- has all the elements I spoke about and is often left off the radar screen because so much focus on Tillie comes from his works in the metro NYC area and in the Philadelphia area.

[Kyle Harris]

P.S. One last thing -- if you want to see another grand Tillie par-5 be sure to check out the 14th at Baltimore CC -- has all the elements I spoke about and is often left off the radar screen because so much focus on Tillie comes from his works in the metro NYC area and in the Philadelphia area.

Outside of Philly Cricket, what Philly area Tillie gets any mention?

[wsmorrison]

Outside of Philadelphia Cricket, what other Tillinghast courses are there in the Philadelphia area?

[Greg Stebbins]

Matt,

I have to agree with Andrew regarding #6 center.  I hit the ball farther than about 99.8% of all players out there and I can't get to the green.  I don't even bother trying in a casual round.   I've probably played and caddied the hole well over 1000 times and I've never seen anyone come close.  

The genius of the hole is not the options off the tee, its the variety of shots that are required for the approach.  

[Matt_Ward]

Kalen, Wayne:

I simply mentioned Tillie has a layout in the Philadelphia
area -- he does right? Philadelphia Cricket is a fine design from him and I simply mentioned it as one worthy of attention.
Appreciate the fact checkers weighing in, but my statement is not in error.

Greg:

I hear what you say but the possibility in getting to the green in one blow can happen -- my best testimony is the players who played in the '01 Sr. PGA. If memory serves, Tom Watson gave it a try on a few occasions and again, if memory serves, I believe he was green high on the left side.

Jim Thorpe, I also believe, did likewise.

The issue is not just simply the approach dynamics. No doubt the option in driving the green is very small probability for the bulk of people who play -- but it is certainly an option for those who have above average firepower.

[Mike Policano]

Andrew and Greg,

The last time I played 6 center with Dave was from about 275 yards. As usual for him on that hole, he pulled out the driver and landed on the green on a fly.

His view is if he hits 5 iron sand wedge, it is a hard green to hit.

So he figures, hit driver around the green and take 5 out of play.

It makes it more exciting to watch that's for sure.

Cheers

[AndrewB]

Andrew, let's go back a step -- what's the problem with trimming T-R-E-E CITY on the left side to re-create the Cape effect that was there originally. Then the real gamble element of the tee shot would once be in effect.

Better players simply play out to the right center and play the hole in a snooze three-shot fashion. Before you come back and highlight the 3rd shot elements -- I don't disagree with that as have said so MANY TIMES.

I'm not arguing against removing or trimming trees, I'm simply stating that the hole -- as is -- contains risk/reward elements.  You state that the trees dictate how one plays the hole and I disagree for the reasons I've stated previously.  Some tree removal might create additional options and that might be a good thing, but I'm really talking about the hole as it is today.

I fall in the category of what most people consider a "better player" and I have for a long time played the hole down the left side, even before they built the new tee that makes that side of the fairway more accessible and an even more alluring option.  I don't know a lot of other players that do, but it is certainly an option in my view.

It sounds like perhaps you feel there are only options if you're selecting between different clubs and not selecting between different lines with the same club.  Is that fair or am I misrepresenting your views?

Also, I haven't been citing the third shot elements as the main risk/reward choice, others have.  I have simply been saying there is a choice from the tee and it has a significant impact on the difficulty of your second shot.

Clearly we disagree and that's of course fine.  It's nice to hear your opinion on the matter anyhow.  I'm curious, what do others think?

[Matt_Ward]

Andrew:

Look, there's nothing you're going to say that's going to convince me on 8W and likely vice versa.

When you only say "tree removal might create additional options" then you are simply playing word games with your statement at the very beginnng of your last reply that you're not "against removing or trimmng trees."

Andrew -- wake up and smell the coffee. RCC was overrun by tree proliferation -- as was and is so many courses in the immediate Northeast. That has been helped by a more recent effort to take plenty of them down. More can be done on this front IMHO.

8W was originally thought of as a superb cape hole. THAT OPTION DOESN'T EXIST. GOT IT.

Whether the tee was moved or not is irrelevant. Instead of moving more aggressvely ahead with the tree removal the club decided a far more easier situation would be to move the tee to a certaiin amount. That's a half-step correction - it still doesn't alter the reality that the hole is a mandatory 3-shot hole. Continuing this fruitless exercise serves no purpose. No doub members of the club will embrace their feelings because of the natural tie they have to the place and I salute the loyatlty dimension. Sometimes those who are the closest cannot really see the dfferences being explained.

I'll say this again -- look at the 14th hole at Baltimore CC -- the dimensions I have described over and over and over agan in this thread are proof of what I have mentioned is what lacks with 8W.

[Bill Brightly]

I am trying to visualize what the hole would look like with ALL the trees on the left taken out. It certainly would be a beautiful view, being able to see through the bend, up to the "big tree."

I think the members would go NUTS at the suggestion, by the way. I wonder what Gil Hanse had to say about the hole?

It would be cool if some of the architects here would offer an opinion...

Andrew, would you be even more aggressive off the tee if there were no trees, but the OB stakes remained where they are now?

If the trees were replaced with really thick, 6" "uncut" rough, would your tee shot strategy change? I think you would have to fly the ball 270 to cut the corner.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()