[TEPaul]

"It is just amazing that Massachusetts has such a good and varied collection of courses."

Michael Stachowicz:

I don't think it's that amazing. To me it perfectly logical if one looks closely at the evolution of golf architecture in American and how centrally Massachusetts figured into it. Plus the state just has some terrific natural golfing ground--and very varied golfing ground. Plus Massachussetts has a ton of rock and cool rock croppings (out and otherwise) and all in all that can create some fantastically interesting possibilities in golf course architecture!

[M.W._Burrows]

btufts,

I think you need to play Myopia a few more times.  #3 is probably the most boring hole on the course because it is basically just a very long par three.  Not much strategy to hitting a full driver or three wood into the wind and hoping you're near the green.

#1 and #6 are two of the best holes on the course.  I don't believe that length is what makes a hole strong or weak.  On both incredibly strategic holes you have to THINK from tee to green.  There are many OPTIONS on how to attack each hole and what is wonderful about them is that yes, you can get a three or even a two on either hole and yes, I have seen many people get sixes and even eights on either hole.

[JMD]

Winchester and the Orchards are both much stronger courses than the new course at the International -- which is a little like a Florida layout improved by elevation changes available because it is in New England.  The omission of Crumpin-Fox in favor of the Ranch is senseless.  Massachusetts is fortunate to have so many wonderful courses (even if they are once again buried under snow and ice) but GD's list doesn't just jumble the order, it excludes some of the best courses.  

In particular, Essex and Winchester belong on the list along with Charles River and Brae Burn.  Ross did some great work in these parts and the courses are well maintained by their memberships.  The list needs revision if it is going to capture what is great about playing golf up here.

[Tim_Sylvia]

I feel that Golf Digest's rankings are not exactly as you would desire, because there are many people out there who lack the appreciation of a good golf course.  To a lot of people a good course is 7500 yards long, water on every hole, massive bunkers that look like things you would see under a microscope, and have huge greens that are more undulating than the Berkshires.  I belong at a Ross designed course and there are some members who think it is an awful course, while others say it is one of his best designs south of Boston in Massachusetts.
I have played many of the courses on the top 15, and I do disagree on the placement of some, and the lack of others.  The top 15 according to what I have read and played would probably be:
1. The Country Club
2. Kittansett
3. Salem
4. Myopia
5. Nantucket
6. Eastward Ho!
7. Sankaty Head
8. New Seabury
9. Essex
10. Taconic
11. Oyster Harbors
12. Charles River
13. Brae Burn
14. Hyannisport
15. Winchester

I can't really comment on CC National as I have not played it yet, and I have never even heard of The Ranch, let alone anything good.  

[Matt_Ward]

Tim S:

Have you played Crumpin-Fox and if you have do you really believe it's no where near as good as you make New Seabury out to be? To me the big deal with New Seabury comes quite early and then fades like a broken colt down the stretch.

I personally can't see Crumpin-Fox trailing Hyannisport and Taconic either IMHO. Thanks!

[T_MacWood]

Tim
I like the looks of your list. Why do you prefer Kittansett to Eastward Ho!?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
I think they are both excellent choices and I don't see anyone missing out if they played either one but I see Taconic ahead of CFox for several reasons. These two are purely personal:
1- CFox has a more claustrophobic feel than Taconic
2- CFox's holes have a more manufactured look than Taconic.
 
What hurts CFox more than anything else is the forced carries over water to the greens on holes #7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 18. A hole like 12 has it all around the back of the green and many other holes have some water carries off the tees, although they wouldn't bother good players too much.
Additionally, there are quite a few holes with flanking wetlands or bodies of water.
Contrast this with Taconic and therein lies the preference, IMHO.

p.s. Never mind that Taconic is a club with a great number of players who walk, shoot their age like 82 year old Eliot Asinoff, have never heard of "Winter Rules" and where rounds are always under 4 hours.   

[Tim_Sylvia]

I failed to mention Crumpin Fox as a course I have not played, and I have little knowledge of it, as I said these are courses which I have played, or read extensively on.  I have two reasons for Kittansett being ahead of Eastward Ho!  First, Kittansett has the ability to change dramatically, while I am sure Eastward Ho does also, the winds at Kittansett are incredible at times.  Also, I have played Kittansett about ten times, while I have only played Eastward once.  I was very impressed with it, but I'm sure I would get a much better idea of it by playing there a few more times.  Another question I have is, If you were to add another ten courses to this list to make it the top twenty-five, what would they be?  Thanks for the input on my list.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim K:

With all due respect -- the 8th at Crumpin-Fox is a superb hole and one of the finest par-5 you can play in all of New England. It's a question of "dare" for the golfer to decide how aggressive / timid you wish to play the hole.

When you talk about the "non" course aspects of Taconic I don't disagree. The membership is definitely first rate, they take their golf seriously and they don't fart around when playing.

With that said -- the teeth of Taconic has less overall bite than Crumpin-Fox IMHO. Clearly, this comes down to individual preference. I also believe CF has less of the "contrived" or "forced man's hand" that sometimes has been said of other designs by Roger Rulewich. The course just uses the land and unfolds for the player to take in throughout the round. I mean can someone say that CF is not in the top 15 within Massachusetts. Guys, let's not "fall in love" with these wonderful old styled courses and simply forget about what has been successfully with some of the new ones. I don't doubt the qualities of Winchester and Essex but there's more to Mass than just those type of courses and I believe there's enough room for CF to be a part of such a grouping.

Let me just say that I don't doubt Taconic can make a top 15 listing for the Bay State -- I just don't see how CF misses the mark because it is so compelling and clearly, in my mind, the state's best public facility. If you look at New Seabury / Blue you will see a layout that goes for the high notes early in the round with the holes near Nantucket and then as you work away from the front side the bulk of the round you get progression of mundane holes that lack real fire and design initiative.

Jim, when you say "forced carry" let's be clear -- the amount of land you need to cover at CF is not anywhere close to what you have to do at say Bethpage Black with the 10th and 12th holes. A "forced carry" of 200 yards from the tips is not really an issue of being F-O-R-C-E-D. And if it is -- that means the player should really be playing the hole from the next closest tee box IMHO.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
Did you misread my post? I said "forced carries over water to the greens". CFox has 9 such holes with 10/11 and 13/14/15 running consecutively. I never said the 8th wasn't a good hole, just that it, along with 8 of its other siblings, requires a forced carry to the green.  I did say that the forced carries off the tees were negligible for most players even though they are present.

Having nine forced carries to greens is repetitive and is enough, I feel, to hold CFox down in the ratings.
Are you saying that you believe a course which F-O-R-C-E-S a player into one type of approach to H-A-L-F of its greens, in this case an aerial shot over water, is stellar architecture?

And as I said in my earlier post, I like this course but it should not rank as high as Taconic mainly because of the limitations caused by the nine forced carries.  

[Tom_Doak]

That list of 15 courses is silly, and so are many other things in the "Best in State" lists, for two good reasons:

1.  many of the courses listed are less than two points apart, and

2.  the "tradition" numbers count in these listings also.

I hate to say so, but I would guess that the CC of New Seabury gets relatively high numbers in "tradition" because it was actually part of the GOLF DIGEST list in the 1970's.  I've never actually gone to see it, but I would be beyond shocked if it was a better course than Essex County Club, which isn't among the top 15 in the state.

[JMD]

As to New Seabury, it's not better than Essex or Winchester.  For that matter, it's not better than Crumpin Fox-- multiple carries over wter notwithstanding.  

[M.W._Burrows]

I'd put Essex County Club ahead of most of the courses on the list.  

If Eastward Ho! undertook a good restoration and removed a bunch of trees along the bluff it would jump into the top three in the state IMHO.  I certainly liked it better than The Country Club of Brookline.  

The same goes for Winchester although it has some pretty featureless greens.

While I have not played Kittansett, I have not spoken to anyone who has played it that thinks it's better than Salem or Myopia.

[Keith Durrant]

Shouldnt Arnold Palmer's TPC course make it on here?

Additionally, i think most local players would rate Pine Hills and Waverly Oaks ahead of Captains?

[Matt_Ward]

Jim K:

Mea culpa -- but CF is still a solid and fair layout -- right? The holes are produced to work in concert with the existing land and fortunately the amount of trees do not interfere with the manner by which one should play the holes. If you have to carry some H20 to reacht he greens so be it. I mean Jim, common, we're not talking about playing a course loaded with water like something you would see in southeast Florida -- right?

I have always wondered how New Seabury gets by in the minds of many people. If you look at holes like #2 through #4 you're seeing the best of the ocurse early -- the rest becomes a major let-down.

I do agree with others who've mentioned Essex -- it just seems that Massachusetts is just another state listing that misses the mark IMHO.

P.S. Be curious to ask those in the know how they see the best public courses in the state? Do they see the listing from GW to be accurate? Are the public courses on the Cape really that good?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
I did say that I felt a golfer wouldn't be missing out if he/she played either of these courses. CFox is very soild and more relentless than Taconic and I think it fits your golf-course-as-a-test criteria.
No, the course isn't loaded with water, like some in Fla., but I would refer you to their website which has hole-byhole photos and yardage book.
I really cannot think of any other reason that CFox is not more highly regarded than the one I previously mentioned, too many approaches over water.  

[John_Conley]

Serious query:

Why can't LONGMEADOW get any burn?

[Martin Del Vecchio]

I found an older Golf Digest list, which I copied from their web site in April of 2000.  The list might have been compiled in 1999.  Here it is:

1)  The Country Club
2)  Kittansett C.
3)  Salem C. C.
4)  Nantucket G. C.
5)  New Seabury Resort (Blue)
6)  Sankaty Head G. C.
7)  Myopia Hunt C.
8)  Eastward Ho!
9)  Hyannisport C.
10) Cyprian Keyes G. C.
11) Winchester C. C.
12) Crumpin-Fox C.
13) Oyster Harbors C.
14) Brae Burn C. C.
15) Essex County C.

The changes I can see are:
-- Nantucket dropped from 4 to 6.
-- New Seabury moved from 5 to 4.
-- Myopia moved from 7 to 5.
-- Sankaty Head moved from 6 to 7.
-- Eastward Ho! moved from 8 to 10.
-- Oyster Harbors moved from 13 to 12.
-- Cyprian Keyes (10), Winnchester (11), Crumpin-Fox (12), and Essex County (15) disappeared.
-- International/Oaks (8), Charles River (11), The Ranch (13), and Cape Cod National (15) appeared.

I've always wondered if the word "National" in the name of a golf course has a subtle positive effect on those evaluating it.

Taconic didn't show up in 2000, either.  

[JMD]

Cyprian Keys deserved to fall off the list -- the others don't make sense to me.  In each case, the replacements are inferior (in some cases, vastly so).

[Martin Del Vecchio]

I like Cyprian Keyes.  In fact, the land is in my blood; my 7th great-grandfather bought a parcel of land in that area from Cyprian Keyes' son in the 1700s.  But it's definitely not one of the 15 best courses in MA.  In fact, it would have a hard time ranking in the top 5 in some towns (such as Plymouth) these days.

[Martin Del Vecchio]

OK, I just played the New Seabury Ocean course today for the first time.  Up front, I will admit:  1) it was 42 degrees, 2) it was windy, 3) it was raining, 4) the greens were aerated and bare, and 5) I didn't play well.

Ignoring all that, I liked the course, but must agree with the general discussion here that the course is overrated.  The views on the front 9 were not there today, obviously, so I think I can discount them.

The thing that struck me most is the carry distances from the tees over bunkers and water.  I played from what used to be called the white tees, which are now marked as the blue tees (6,789 yards, 73.9/131).  What used to be the blue tees, but which are now marked as the gold tees, are 7,140 yards and 75.8/133.  Here are the carry distances, according to the yardage book:

Hole        Blue tees      Gold tees
--------------------------------
 1           161, 199       187, 225
 2           219              252
 3           226              263
 6           206, 206       235, 235
 7           208, 216       226, 249
 9           230              264
10          201              224
12          261              290
13          206              232
15          174              212
16          224, 213       253, 242
17          191              219
18          201              231

Granted, some of these shots are into a stiff wind, but even in today's conditions, I did not end up in a fairway hazard (I am a 2.3 handicap, and usually drive between 250 and 260).

This course has been "redesigned" twice, by Rees Jones, and recently by Marvin Armstrong.  I didn't play before the redesign, so I can't comment on the changes.  But I was surprised that the fairway bunkers weren't located in a place where I would consider them to be dangerous.

My bottom line:  I liked the course, but not as much as the two Pinehills courses, Waverly Oaks, Red Tail, Shaker Hills, and even The Ranch.

[Keith Durrant]

Played New Seabury yesterday. Sunny day, brisk breeze off the ocean.

It is a lovely spot with the sunshine sparkling off the sea.

I'm sure the course layout must have been discussed before, with the ocean holes coming so early in the round: 2, 3, 4.
Effectively, the whole front nine was exposed to the wind yesterday. But at 2 and 3 it was straight across left to right and barely possible to keep the ball in play. Add in the fact that the windchill kept one from loosening up, then one was hardly able to challenge the holes with one's best shot.

The inland back 9 was more sheltered. Much as i like to sling a drawing t-shot, the 5 dogleg-left holes on the back-nine would appear a weakness. A player with a natural fade must surely be at a distinct disadvantage here.

The green complexes are varied and interesting, often 'set-up' a few feet allowing a clear view from the fairway of the pins.

The obvious question is why dont they switch the 9s around? Further, it would have been quite straight-forward to design 2 and 3, in reverse direction, to be 16 and 17 (or  7 and .

[Matt_Ward]

rottcod:

You raise a good bit about New Seabury -- but ask yourself this -- how did such a routing come into existence. Thing how much better the overall experience of the course would have been if the architect had weaved the final holes along Nantucket!

I don't doubt the demands of holes 2-4 but after that stretch you don't get the same kind of feeling for the remainder of the round. In many ways New Seabury / Blue is sort of like Spyglass Hill -- the routing should have taken advantage of such a close connection to the ocean. A worthy opportunity was compromised because the best part of the round does in fact come so early.

P.S. For what it's worth -- there is much in Massachusetts that GD got wrong. Crumpin-Fox is just one example -- Essex County is another. I'd be curious if anyone has played the new Nicklaus (albeit Jack's son) at Pine Hills? Is it worth a look from the NYC area?

[DTaylor18]

Matt, you are right on on New Seabury.  Your adrenaline is pumping by the fourth hole, but the round peaks right there.  The two nines is an interesting question, because New Seabury DID switch the nines very briefly last year for the very reasons mentioned above.  However, I asked them why they switched the nines back and their answer was interesting.  The current 10th hole they said was a problem as the 1st hole because it caused major backups.  It's a 90 degree dogleg left par 4 that is sharply downhill.  They said that their were big backups because people couldn't see most of the fairway, so the waits on the tee for the fairway to clear were too long, aided by the forest on the left, which left a lot of people searching for their balls for a long time.

Re: Pinehills, I have played the new Nicklaus course.  I personally think the Joens coursemay be slightly better, but they are both good.  The Jones course is tougher off the tee but much easier greens to hit, whereas the Nicklaus course is the opposite, wide fairways but smaller better protected greens.  There are more houses on the Nicklaus course too.  I personally wouldn't travel from NY to play it, but if you do, feel free to send me an instant message, I'd love to play there with you.  I have some other ideas on MA courses if you're interested.

Dan  

[Martin Del Vecchio]

I agree that the Pinehills courses are both very nice, but probably not worth a special trip from NY.  

The comments about New Seabury not taking advantage of the ocean (Nantucket Sound) frontage remind me of Ocean Hammock, the new Nicklaus course in Palm Harbor, FL.  That course has a little more frontage than New Seabury, but not much.  The 9th and 18th holes there are along the ocean, with other holes playing towards it, or offering peaks at it.  I think it's much more dramatic and effective than what New Seabury has.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()