[jonathan_becker]

Hi Everybody!!  (all in unison) Hi Dr. Nick!! 

On a weekend to Philly this summer, I'm playing Philly CC and Rolling Green.  In searching through our great discussion board, I've found a few threads about each course.  Joe Bausch did a great thread on Philly CC's history http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42915.0/  and another great thread with a lot of restoration photos of Rolling Green http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40471.msg882783/. 

I can't find any photos of Philly CC on this site and was interested to see if anyone had some to post.  Furthermore, I want to know how these 2 great courses match up against each other.  Not necessarily in a head to head battle, but just in a comparative manner.  I guess I just like heading to a new course and not rolling into it naked.  I like to have a general idea of what's ahead for the next 4 hours.

So, other than the fact that both of these courses are in the same area, they're both parkland designs, and that Billy Flynn had his hand in designing both, what differentiates the 2 courses?

What are the stand out architectural features of each?

Does one have more undulating greens than the other?

Are the playing angles wider off the tee or wider into the greens?  Maybe similar?

What about the lay of the land?  RG seems to have some decent elevation changes.  Can the same be said for Philly CC?

Which course has better contours throughout the fairways?  Are there lots of uneven lies?

What are your favorite holes at each?

Tell me something you don't like about one or the other?

What's not to miss at each club?  (could be a menu item)

etc, etc, etc, etc.

So, for all of you that have experienced both clubs (and I know that there a lot of you), let's hear it!!

[mike_malone]

 Jonathan,

   I'd be more interested in your answers to your questions AFTER you play them. I would just say that I love the way Flynn uses the land he is given. The land is generally similar at each course but RG has more up and down. While you say you want information before you play these courses, I think you will only get personal opinions. I strongly feel that Flynn courses are best appreciated by playing them not dissecting them . Going into each with an open mind and an observant eye will add to the joy.

[Garland Bayley]

They look like a couple of Doak 7s to me.

[TEPaul]

"I guess I just like heading to a new course and not rolling into it naked."


Actually Jonathan, the memberships are different enough where I'm pretty sure you could get away with playing Rolling Green naked or most of it naked but I wouldn't recommend trying something like that at Philadelphia Country Club.

[jonathan_becker]

Mayday,

After looking through Joe's photo tour of RG, my money was that you would be the first reply for the thread! 

After I play, I will definitely be more than happy to express my thoughts on both courses.

About only receiving personal opinions....that's completely fine by me.  In typing my initial post, that's what I'm looking for.  Example - I get that a narrow fw to one player may be viewed fairly wide to another.  But I want to hear those opinions thrown in with a few cool facts.   From there,  I want to take those opinions and compare them to what I eventually will see.  That's what I do when I play a new course. 

I always view each new hole and course that I play with an open mind, but I also like to have a reference to what the popular opinion is or general take by the members and regular players.  It gives me the chance to say, "those guys don't have any idea what they're talking about on #7!" or "wow....so and so nailed down the dangers of #15 exactly as I saw them"  Right or wrong, it gives myself a chance to compare my personal thoughts to the popular thought.  It's fun for me. 

Tom Paul,

When I'm a guest at private clubs, I generally like to take my shirt off on #2 tee once I'm away from the clubhouse.   

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

It's been awhile since I've played either, but my first thought is that Rolling Green has 18 very-good to great holes while Phila. CC has 16 of them (8 and 9 are just a bit duller in context of the entirety of the course).  My other thought is Rolling Green seems a bit more challenging tee to green, and its par-3's are all outstanding!  That's not to say PCC isn't a great golf course with loads of architectural merit and interest -- it most definitely is; it's just that RGCC grabs you by the sack right from the first hole and doesn't let go until the very end.

[mike_malone]

 As to what they did on #7 it isn't a matter of opinion to me. Either it is consistent with the original design or it isn't. So, when you add bunkers that were never designed, built , or added during Flynn's lifetime you are not being in harmony with the original design. If you don't care about the original design then ,ok ,do what ever you want. All bets are off. You have opened Pandora's box. But, when the purpose of working on the course is to restore it and you need to take out some hideous trees to do that just do that!!

    I don't mind a good give and take when people disagree about interpretations. That is fun.

   So, use your imagination on that hole. Think what the approach would be like if you could run the ball in along that hill that is on the right. We actually were able to play the hole properly for a few weeks after the trees were gone and before the bunkers were added. PRICELESS!!!

[mike_malone]

 As to PCC  I think the routing change from the original is a significant issue for me. #1 and #2 would be more enjoyable if they came at the end and #3 would be a great finishing hole. Just ask Sam Snead. #18 is a new hole. If they did anything like this at RG there would have been an uprising!

[jonathan_becker]

Mayday,

When I said #7, I was merely throwing out a random number, please pardon my ADD.....but it looked like it paid off for me because you just gave me 2 great posts!!  I've learned some valuable info and I much appreciate it!! You gave me some facts about your club, and a few opinions about PCC. This is all I'm trying to accomplish.

Thank you for your insight.

Also, I'm a lifer for the camp of original design.  No pandora's box for me. 

EDIT - after now reading every post in Joe Bausch's RG thread, I didn't mean to stir the pot with #7.  No harm intended.

[Rory Connaughton]

Of the two, I think RG is slightly more demanding with a terrific set of par 3's in particular though 15 at PCC may be the most difficult of the lot.  You will see a lot of similarities. Both courses beautifully bunkered.Two excellent par 5's in PCC 3 and RG 9. 

[TEPaul]

"As to what they did on #7 it isn't a matter of opinion to me. Either it is consistent with the original design or it isn't. So, when you add bunkers that were never designed, built , or added during Flynn's lifetime you are not being in harmony with the original design. If you don't care about the original design then ,ok ,do what ever you want. All bets are off. You have opened Pandora's box. But, when the purpose of working on the course is to restore it and you need to take out some hideous trees to do that just do that!!

    I don't mind a good give and take when people disagree about interpretations. That is fun.

   So, use your imagination on that hole. Think what the approach would be like if you could run the ball in along that hill that is on the right. We actually were able to play the hole properly for a few weeks after the trees were gone and before the bunkers were added. PRICELESS!!!"



Mayday:

Would you like to have dinner with Wayne and me at a booth in a local diner this coming Friday night and discuss this further?

[mike_malone]

 TEPaul,

    I hold you and Wayne personally responsible for the bunkers on #7 .

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()