Galloway National

[archie_struthers]

 

Galloway is really hard for lots of good players,  and worse for players of lesser ability. Lot's of really big scores here,   I'm not really sure why this is, but as you might guess   I've got a few theories.   It's  not endemic of this crew to not like courses just because you can't score on them, but it might be the case here.

No golf courses at the Jersey Shore get my engine racing like a trip to Galloway .  SO LET'S ROCK.


Galloway hits you right out of the box,  and if it wasn't for Pine Valley first five , it's the toughest around

Number one is the best hole on the golf course , a short par four that you can hit with a flip wedge , but you have to cut the corner just right to  miss the big waste bunker , look out for the hanging lie if you don't bust it to the flat spot. Over the green can be an X  , so the super can't put the pin back there too often..... spin the shot too much with the front pin and down the hill you come....   too hard for the first hole for most people , it requires high skill level on the second shot for sure



Now #2  par three only about 140 from the tips....just a bitch of a hole if the wind blows a little,   and it usually does...short is bad, but not near as bad as right or heaven forbid left  ...lots of trouble here...by the way the views of the marsh and inland waterway are spectacular on this little beauty


#3    got some isues here, but it not too bad strategically ...it's a lay-up tee shot of about 235-250 with the better angle left,  the green is the problem, with multiple renovations necessary, the air doesn't move real good here , and there have been some problems with holding this green in the hot summer months..the slopes were very, very , severe here , and Fazio has softened them considerably but the green repels lots of shots to unplayable areas by most players standards...hard short hole

#4 is a difficult par four that requires a tee shot to the corner of a gaping bunker on the left..for longer hitters it's a three wood as the angle gets bad if you drve it to the end of the fairway..trees in the way .. fairly large flattish gree that also repels shots on the edges if you don't flight the ball right ....

#5 is a nice par three of about 185 back along the marsh....very severe swale in the left front of the green is to be avoided ..this ends the first part of the course...it changes after a  long , but not unpleasant walk to the sixth tee

Not going to do the whole golf course ,  but it gets a lot easier after the walk....perhaps the walk does the slow burn on those way over par and not a third complete yet....but  i"m not buying in...the first five at PINE VALLEY are too hard also

 
Galloway has  plenty of room to hit the ball and distance is not a big issue , by today's standards only the 13th hole , an uphill, challenging par four makes you really have to move it large off the tee.  The greens remain the biggest challenge , but isn't that the case at most great venues

You have to really pay attention at Galloway, some benign holes abound....all the par fives are fairly easy, only sixteen requires serious care, but they all are reachable in two , and certainly are all birdie holes for good players...so what makes it so hard?


...at Galloway you really need to understand the shots to hit , and miss it correctly to play really well .... and methinks this jangles the rythm of many, and their concentration.....and thus creates ambivalent feelings as to it's relevancel

[mike_malone]

  I only said that GN was less fun to play than other courses like TD, SB, and MEL because it has fewer angles and recovery options . My feeling was that staying straight was the best thing to do on virtually every tee shot. Matt, you said it yourself. GN punishes bad shots.

[archie_struthers]

 

Tom Doak ...David hit it right on the head about the greens they  don't receive shots well  in spots, a cause of much complaint ...I think Billy Z is right and wrong  ...Galloways are quite interesting , if a little unfair....you really have to hit to spots ....lots of fall offs on the edges that repel shots ,   once you understand them they aren't too bad , but you need some skill to get the ball to the pins ....and understand when you just can't go for it..  ACCC never required the skill of Galloway, and the customers loved it...scoring was easy..  and he wanted it to remain that way

It's a shame you didn't walk the course Tom D ....it's quite good and really some nice property....I don't get why no one thinks the land wasn't good here....

...I've grown to like all of them more as I play it more...wish I took more chances myself at Twisted.....oh well, maybe next time

as to routing on flat faceless land  Jerry ...forgive my thin skin....do you really think a boring  faceless piece of land is easier to make interesting to play...??

[Scott_Burroughs]

[mike_malone]

 Scott,


    Is that GN or World Woods?  It sure ain't Pine Valley.

[Mike Sweeney]

Mayday

Winged Foot, Bethpage, Merion, Aronimink and now Galloway. There is a chance that you just don't like hard courses.

[mike_malone]

 Mike,

   You keep better track of my opinions than I do. But, my reasons for thinking these courses were overrated are varied. WFW, boring (relatively) off the tee;  BPB ,hoohum greens with some mundane holes; Merion, the stretch from #7 to #13 is too weak; Aronimink lacks variety: GN is weak strategically.  My experience of these courses was not that they were hard to score on.You forgot Friar's Head and Hidden Creek as highly regarded courses I didn't see that way.

  Overseas I have less love for Royal Portrush than most and have dissed Carne and portions of Enniscrone.

   I truly believe that the recovery shot is the most important shot in golf because the great majority of golfers fail in their execution. That is the shot Flynn designed for. These hard courses are usually punishing to wayward shots . But, that kind of design seems unimaginative to me and restricts the breadth of golfers who can enjoy the course.( I need to except people who enjoy punishment from the discussion.)

   

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

How do you fathom that WF/W is "boring" off the tee? You have to shape tee shots there on a steady basis. Did you not see that when you played there or were you so pissed because the course beat the crap out of you that you needed to concoct such an ill-informed reason.

In regards to the greens at BB -- did you play the course when the greens were at full speed?

In both WF/W and BB -- recovery options are clearly present. It may not allow for total recovery but it is present.

Let me repeat what you wrote earlier -- you see both McCullough's and Sand Barrens ahead of GN. Mike -- that is preposterous thus far without a clear reason. Thus far -- it's been about the walking elements and a less than probing analysis of a weak or contrived routing. You agreed that GN penalizes poor shots -- what's so wrong with that -- course should do that -- GN does it proportionally to the level of execution carried out.

I asked this before -- can you name a TF course you have played that you see as beign stellar ?
p.s. on one point i do agree - i like the layout of Dunluce at Portrush but didn't fancy the tight driving corridors protected by the hay-like rough just off several of them.  One remaining item -- Mike can you name your ten favorite courses in NJ ? thanks ...

[Jerry Kluger]

Archie: Let me say this: To me, routing is the most important and difficult part of golf course design.  You can walk the land and find some great holes and green complexes but getting to them without creating a bunch of mediocre holes or difficult walks is the most difficult challenge.  So if you have a flat and uninteresting piece of property and bring in tons of dirt in order to fabricate some holes that have no resemblance to the rest of the area then that, to me at least, is not great architecture.  I have played TD and enjoyed it but I just don't think it is great architecture.  You look at the surrounding area and it is pine forest - if I remember correctly, there isn't a tree on TD. GN has some forced routing and that diminishes its overall evaluation from me but it is not a reflection on Fazio since it was the owner who demanded that there be as many holes as possible on the bay and the property has a road cutting through. 

[mike_malone]

 Matt,

    I don't think I have played many Fazios. Hartefeld is one and years ago I played the Disney courses. I believe the most interesting one may have been a Fazio. Compare the landing areas of Oakmont to WFW and then tell me what you think. I played BPB in November.

  As for the more modest courses at the shore I do think GN is more fun than Blue Heron and Hansen's other course. You need to realize that I don't rank these courses for a living; I just play them. Some are more fun than others. I pay very little attention to conditioning because I know that is usually a function of how much money you have. However, I do really appreciate a well conditioned course that has a modest budget.

    While I wouldn't rank them in an exact order my ten Jersey courses that I played are  Plainfield ,Twisted Dune, Scotland Run,Hidden Creek,Atlantic City,Centerton,MEL,SB,GN,Architect's

[mike_malone]

 Jerry,

    Your post certainly proves "diffferent strokes for different folks". Even if the land is flat and then dirt is brought in and moved around, I still judge the routing based on the variety of holes , directions, flow. I don't get the idea that the course should be like the area around the course, but can see why that might be important to someone else.

   I do find it hard to believe that TD does not strike someone as compelling architecture, though.

[Jerry Kluger]

Mayday: Interesting perhaps, but compelling - that's a bit over the top.  TD is nicely done and is fun but be honest, the mounding to create corridors is really a bit much.  If you didn't have those mounds there would be a greater challenge to the architect to create angles and such which can be seen by the player.  It's like a mini Ballyneal or Sand Hills - or maybe something from Scotland - but it is manufactured. There are people who bash Fazio for Shadow Creek - I really liked it and found it fun to play and a great creation, but it is a creation.  At Galloway Fazio was given limitations and accepted them - the holes on the bay aren't great but they certainly aren't bad. You don't get the feeling that he manufactured the other holes and in fact, many of them are top notch. Some of the greens have incredible contours and challenges which are a whole bunch of fun. 

[mike_malone]

 Jerry,

   I just take the course as it is and decide what I think. I don't care about reasons why someone did less than a great job. This is always the Inniscrone argument; Gil Hanse had to accept such and such restrictions. But, if you judge a course just by how fun it is to play you don't need this extra information. Why does GN get a pass?

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

I play golf for fun too.

From your own words -- you need to see other TF layouts before providing a clear judgement on GN. That would give you a better understanding of what he did so well there. The Jersey Shore is a unique area and TF didn't make GN be the poster child for another TF eye-candy layout that looks completely mailed-in. You mentioned Hartefeld and the Disney layouts -- GN is miles beyond them in my mind.

Mike, I never said Oakmont was below WF/W but the Tillie creation has some great landing zones in which the tee shots need to be played. Your memory of the Westchester-based course is a bit spotty on the details and you have made a broad generalization without any specifics. In regards to BB the time of year you played the course is not a fair frame to show what it provides.

Mike, I saw your Jersey listing of courses and it's really strange for you to plop GN BEHIND the likes of SB, McCullough's and of all places Centerton. Your thinking on what constitues quality design is indeed very unique to your own tastes. Candidly, I see only Plainfield as being ahead of GN and would have the TF layout battling out for a top ten Garden State position.

   

[archie_struthers]

 

Jerry appreciate you comments , don't necessary agree but that's ok.  As to Twisted Dune we didn't build mounds , we took dirt away .
The shapers just randomly hacked up the edges .  It was a unique project not necessarily for the golf  but for the construction angles of the process, I still like most of the holes and  have fun when we play there, as do most of my mates.

However this was really about Galloway...and perhaps the anti-Fazio sentiment is sometimes valid here, as to Shadow Creek if you liked it it's good , it doesn't have to be minimalist to be good, the holes have to be varied and fun ....most importantly to me they need to flow. if anything the difficulty of Galloway for most players interrupts same....

stay cool

archie

[Matt_Ward]

I'd be curious if someone can post the current CR and slope for GN -- one other related item -- I'd like anyone to explain to me how the course overly accentuates limitations for the mid to high handicapper -- in terms of recovery options and if such players have more of a demanding time there than with other top tier designs.

[Bob Harris]

The current course rating and slope:

Back    74.5          146
Middle  71.7          140
Senior  68.4          132

[Matt_Ward]

Bob:

Thanks for posting -- again, the number listed are not anymore severe than what you see with other top tier Jersey courses.

Going beyond the numbers -- I still have yet to read the specifics tied to a lack of recovery shot possibilities and the further thought that "fun" shots are not part and parcel when playing there.

If anything -- what I have heard is just a simple personal preference against the course itself. Candidly, there needs to be a good bit more "beef" argument to make such a case. I have not seen it thus far.

[Jerry Kluger]

Archie: I felt that Mayday was off base when he does the typical Fazio bashing when evaluating GN and judging TD simply on fun factor.  Yes, TD is a fun course and I enjoyed it very much but that doesn't mean that you have to bash GN.  I agree with Matt Ward that GN is one of the top courses in NJ - especially when it comes to modern courses.  I know the routing is not great but I don't blame Fazio for it as that was what he was given to work with and the guidelines he was given.  When you evaluate the holes they are really good and the greens and green complexes are outstanding.  Many people don't like it because it is tough - and is really tough if you don't put it in the fairway - and I think that it is more than simply putting it in the middle of the  fairway.

Cheers

[mike_malone]

 If it is really punishing to miss the fairway then the only sensible thing to do for an average golfer is to aim for the middle of the fairway. I think people have a Fazio bashing defense thing going on that I don't understand. I didn't bash Fazio. I just say the playability of the course is less enjoyable then courses with more width. Width is critical to creating strategy at the green or for layups on par fives.  Anyone who chooses to restrict width is engaging in an architectural choice that is anti-golf. Golf is not aiming straight and being punished severely for a mishit----that's torture!! Golf is recovering from the execution mistakes of a well thought out strategy.

     I truly believe that at McCulloughs you end up with many more chances to be far afield with a wild recovery shot than you ever have at GN. Thus it is more fun to play and better architecture.

  If you define good architecture as well crafted features with little to do with strategy then I can see why you think GN is great. I just don't agree.

   It is all about playing.

  

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

It seems you prefer the "lite" versions of golf -- which clearly is your prerogative. You mentioned an aversion to BB and WF/W and no doubt others feel the same way. In many instances - the players touting the "fun" side of things because such courses do not give them the "fun" dimension because of how such courses do not fit their games.

Mike, all courses should penalize players because of mishits. The issue for you is that you seem to believe that even the most wildest of shots needs to be handled by the architecture. I don't see such a leeway as practical or even needed in almost all cases. You say anti-width is "anti-golf."

Mike, under that theory how much width do you need ?

Do you need the width of Kansas to say such a course is worthy of your personal thumbs up?

GN provides sufficient width -- compare it to Dunluce at Portrush and you can see the diferences quite clearly.

Although yo may not wish to admit it -- you need to reazlize how well TF did inkeeping with the Jersey Shore approach for this parrticular piece of property -- he could have easily made the course into a version of sHADOW cREEK OR EVEN WORSE.

[mike_malone]

 In no way do I consider my preference to be "lite". If you miss the fairway and might be required to shape the shot in some way and need to carry a bunker or a hazard by the green while coming into the green at its least advantageous angle that is not easy. In fact, that is hard; to strategize and to execute. If I stand on the tee and realize a mishit leads to a penalty stroke or a punch out shot from jail, I really don't think of options  I think of avoiding trouble. When I end up in the trees and am forced to punch out instead of approaching the green I then am trying one of the easiest shots and most boring shots in golf.
 
  So, I actually think courses that penalize you too much play easier but may take more strokes to complete.

   I don't care one iota about the backstory on these courses. I'm just there to play them.
   

[Jim_Coleman]

    With all due respect, Mike, when you (and 99% of all of us) stand on a tee, your goal is to put the ball in the fairway.  There's not a lot of imagination involved.  If there's trouble on the right - be it water, a bunker, a tree, a pond, or whatever - you might try to err to the left.  Whether the trouble can cost you a whole shot, a half shot, or two shots is meaningless.  If it happens to cost you two shots, then the hole happens to be a harder hole than the half shot obstacle.  Neither is more "strategic" than the other.
     I happen to agree with you on Galloway.  I think it's too hard.  For example, the second hole is praised by some here.  I think the hole stinks.  The green is almost impossible to hit.  It falls off everywhere, and pretty much accepts only a perfect shot.  I call that bad architecture.  As for the routing, I don't see how anyone can defend it.  The walks between some greens and tees are just too long - 2 to 3; 4 to 5; 5 to 6 (where you have to walk about 150 yards of the 6th hole twice); 8 to 9 (where you actually walk the length of the 8th hole 4 times - once when you pass it playing 7, once when you play it, once when you walk back to 9 tee, and once when you walk off 9 tee); 9 to 10; 10 to 11, 11 to 12; and 15 to 16.

[archie_struthers]

 

Just reread the topic and replies because I think Galloway is an incredibly delicious subject of discussion. One can easily argue the negatives some postulate here , like the long forced walks from green to tee,  or the ridiculously difficulty of #2 when the wind starts to blow....

.but as previously stated no golf course at the Jersey Shore gets my juices flowing like a competitive round at Galloway... I must confess that occasionally it happens at Stone Harbor , which will further discredit me  ...both have lots of quirky stuff ....which I appreciate

Galloway is really hard , and then again it isn't .  If you can play a little , you know that there are lots of birdies out there, and a few bogies or doubles also.........the first hole is one of the best short par fours anywhere, and just might be sequentially too challenging  

 The second hole is absolutely terrifying ! at 140 yards or less...but I kind of like it...hey Jim I can see why you think it stinks as I've made six there after almost making a one.....but that's the deal here


Mayday , we absolutely disagree about Galloway but I  love Twisted too!   LOL   and hopefully we will take a nice walk there this spring if you are feeling  better...really look forward to it 

[Sean_A]

I understand exactly where Mayday is coming from.  The recovery shot is terribly critical in golf and if it often requires one sort of play, I think the design and/or maintenance is flawed - perhaps seriously flawed.  Although, unlike Mayday, I admit to a bias against tough courses.  Not only because they are tough, but also because I believe many tough courses tend to be one dimensional.  There is a heavy price to pay immediately after hitting what is often times a mediocre shot - not necessarily a terrible shot.  Where Mayday doesn't tie in to the issue is that offering creative recoveries is easier golf than the typical championship style of golf.  We always point to TOC as an example of supreme strategy, but as a championship venue, the pros normally tear it apart.  It has to be one of the easiest championship courses going.  Personally, I think this is a positive, but going way back to Crane and before, a great many people disagree.  

We still have this divide in architecture where there are really two schools.  1. Immediately punish the wayward shot - par is often a very, very good score.  The greens too may be so difficult that with a penal set-up saving pars is a miracle. 2. Delay the punishment for a wayward shot - give the golfer an opportunity to make up for his mistake with a great recovery.  Defend courses at the greens by using slopes/contours AND angles/options off the tee.  There is no question these sorts of courses will yield lower courses for the flat bellies, but they tend to be more playable for more golfers - which imo has to count for something if we are talking about good architecture.  

Of course, some may say that the patient man on a direct punishment course can chip out of trouble, play a great recovery and still make par.  However, this means two things.  First, there is often a boring shot to be played and second, the birdie is taken out of play.  I wonder how well Seve would have done if not given the opportunity to recover?  I for one would have missed watching one of the most creative golfers to have ever tread the rough. 

Ciao