[Tom Dunne]

What bothers me even more than bad architecture itself is when a course is so obviously not being maintained in a way that brings out the true nature of the design. I was recently out at Tallgrass on LI and found it to be so soggy as to be tedious--and this has not been a summer that will be remembered for rainy weather. I don't think every course has to be presented firm and fast so as to be fun and interesting--I played a pretty slow version of Hudson National a few years ago and didn't find my enjoyment (such as it was) to be adversely impacted by lush conditioning.

But I have a problem when a course designed with greens to accept a variety of shots is rendered a one-dimensional, aerial bore--and when obviously conscious decisions have been undertaken to create these playing conditions. If there's an agronomic reason for offering up this kind of golf, that's one thing, but it's quite another if it's just being done to slow people down on a short (~6600 yard) course.

I like the design of Tallgrass. This was probably my fifth or sixth play, and I've seen it in really fun shape in years past. But after my most recent visit, I had to post this review: 

http://out-and-back.net/?p=2208

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Sad to say but the vast preponderance of courses in the metro NYC area are often way overwatered because of the fear of turf being seen as brown and dying.

The bounce of the ball is something most supers fear because of the reaction they would get from ignorant members.

[Tom Dunne]

Matt,

That was precisely the worry I expressed in the very last line of the review. Nothing is more frustrating than seeing design features and attempting to interact with them, only to find that they've been hosed down to the point of uselessness. I'm not asking for Hoylake, but wouldn't it be nice if there was some sense of how the architecture works? Do we really have to wait until November for it to play even remotely the way it should?

[jeffwarne]

What bothers me even more than bad architecture itself is when a course is so obviously not being maintained in a way that brings out the true nature of the design. I was recently out at Tallgrass on LI and found it to be so soggy as to be tedious--and this has not been a summer that will be remembered for rainy weather. I don't think every course has to be presented firm and fast so as to be fun and interesting--I played a pretty slow version of Hudson National a few years ago and didn't find my enjoyment (such as it was) to be adversely impacted by lush conditioning.

But I have a problem when a course designed with greens to accept a variety of shots is rendered a one-dimensional, aerial bore--and when obviously conscious decisions have been undertaken to create these playing conditions. If there's an agronomic reason for offering up this kind of golf, that's one thing, but it's quite another if it's just being done to slow people down on a short (~6600 yard) course.

I like the design of Tallgrass. This was probably my fifth or sixth play, and I've seen it in really fun shape in years past. But after my most recent visit, I had to post this review: 

http://out-and-back.net/?p=2208

With the summer LI's had, and the financial concerns of Tallgrass, the alternative would be to call it "NO Grass"
Firm and fast isn't cheap and there has been a lot of rain out east in the last few weeks, on top of whatever water was put on to deal with the heat.
Those (if any)who are acheiving firm and fast this summer are either high budget and really good(hand watering), closed, or dead

[Dave Falkner]

gotta  agree with Jeff on this one

with this heat firm and fast is just not in play for a public track

I think the OP is being a bit unfair

[Dan Herrmann]

Nobody's playing firm and fast around here this year unless they like betting on "00" in roulette.  Just too risky this year.

[Michael Barnett]

Having played Tallgrass numerous times over the last few years I too have enjoyed its playing conditions generally being firm and fast.  However, given what the weather has been throughout this year I understand the decision to slow it down (whether a public or private) in an effort to ensure viability throughout the season.  The course I play at regularly is running much slower than typical, and that is a conscious effort by the super to ensure we have a full season; these conditions have been anything but ordinary and I hope most understand that.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Can anyone show us an example of a course, where they tried to water less and keep it firm, but the grass died and the course was rendered unplayable?

I am asking, because recently I have been asked to pay a supplement to the regular greenfee (of course only after arriving there), which they said was used for extra water they had to put on, which in effect made for an absolute stinker of a round. So I paid more to get less.

Ulrich

[Matt_Ward]

Ulrich:

You hit the nail on the head -- there are ALWAYS excuses and reasons meant to keep things soft and green. If it's not the heat -- then it's something else.

The sad reality is that the vast preponderance of the folks running clubs in the metro NYC area are ignorant when it comes to the concept of less water and more brown being seen. The issue is about the atmospherics of how a club is "seen" -- rather than how it should be played.

Sorry to hear you've had to dig deeper in your pocket to encourage even more H20 usage.

[Greg Chambers]

It's not just the NYC metro area, Matt.  You find it anywhere you play in the USA.  At least, that's been my experience.

[Ulrich Mayring]

The day before I played it was about 33 degrees Celsius (90 Fahrenheit). Apparently someone said that with those temperatures in the air, the temperature on the ground would be 42 Celsius (107 F) and that is exactly the threshold where the grass would die. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can comment on that?

In any event, on the day I played, the temperature was 23 C (73 F) max and quite humid. No direct sun, a lot of water in the air. And on that day they watered so much that there was standing water(!) on the course. I did not have my waterproof shoes on as I reckoned it hasn't rained in quite a while and wasn't going to - but my feet got completely soaked. At 2 PM on a July's day my trolley was still making visible tracks on the fairway, something I am accustomed to seeing on a dewey autumn morning.

The Pro even commented that my greenfee supplement was well worth it in his opinion, because of the lush and green fairways - something, he said, that not many clubs can produce in the summer. Well, lush they were, those blades of grass - thick and long! For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would prefer damp semi-rough to firm fairway.

Ulrich

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

Looks like they had rain during the week prior, over an inch total:

http://www.weather.com/outlook/recreation/golf/monthly/USNY1327

[Paul_Turner]

I played it today and there were puddles on the fairways!  Only a few  fairways had any run: 2nd,3rd and all the greens and surrounds were soft with zero run (balls nearly plugging)....all the run up features were pointless.

A super course, but something has gone wrong with the maintenance philosophy.

[Kyle Harris]

I think a good number of people on this board would get a nice education look at a golf course from a superintendent's view.

That's 24/7 - not in 4-5 hour stints.

And to answer your question Ulrich, yes, yes I can.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Then please do ;-)

Seriously, I know that I'm not a superintendent. All I know is that course X here is playable and course Y next door isn't.

Ulrich

[Paul_Turner]

Kyle

I don't believe Shinnecock, NGLA and Maidstone are full of puddles, even in this heat.  So I'm not sure why Tall Grass has to be so sodden.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Played Tallgrass yesterday.  I liked the design but the course was soggy.  It definitely is not being maintained in harmony with the original design principles from what I could see.  In addition, #6 was changed to a long par 3, taking what looked to be a very good drivable par 4 and turning it into a below average hole.

[Ronald Montesano]

1. Paul Turner is hilarious...comparing a daily-fee course with three of the most amazing, sand-based courses in the USA. Tall Grass is not completely (if at all) sand-based.

2. Turning #6 into a long par three is a shame. What a terrific par four I remember it to be in 2011.

3. It was soaked last year. Don't know what their goal is.

[BCyrgalis]

I was out there last week and it was in terrific condition -- but, yes, not exactly fast and firm.  There was some unfortunate standing water areas, but I also think they've been absolutely soaking it to make sure it doesn't burn out.  (Why, well...)

I think it's a new superintendent who started this year, and he has a plan to burn down a good amount of the fescue and regrow it this fall.  He's also no longer going to fertilize the fescue so as to make it more playable (and speed the the slog).  I would hope they invest in some more sand, because in years past when the place does play hard, it is one of the most enjoyable go-arounds anywhere on LI.  To cross-reference the Gil Hanse thread, it used to be a flat sod farm, one foot of elevation change, and what is there seems utterly natural and has wonderful contours and strategic lines.  One drawback is that at times, it can be overpowered -- especially if there's no wind.

I think there was also an issue with the back tee boxes on No. 6, where the house out-of-bounds left was getting pelted with stray balls of guys trying to go for the green.  (here's the wikimapia, it's the bottom-left hole: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=40.9324985&lon=-72.889255&z=17&l=0&m=b).  I really hope it doesn't stay as a par-3, because that was one of the best holes on the course; no surprise, a short par-4 as the pinnacle of design. 

[Jay Flemma]

Played Tallgrass yesterday.  I liked the design but the course was soggy.  It definitely is not being maintained in harmony with the original design principles from what I could see.  In addition, #6 was changed to a long par 3, taking what looked to be a very good drivable par 4 and turning it into a below average hole.

It's actually not being turned into a long par-3  I played Saturday and they had the tees up because they are growing in the back tee and dealing with an obstreperous neighbor claiming his house gets hit by golf balls.  They thought about making it a long part-3 but have decided to keep it a par-four.  As soon as they resolve the dispute with the neighbor, there will be more news about the tee boxes...

[John Kavanaugh]

Which of the three houses left is being hit?  Looks like all three are in line for me.

 http://wikimapia.org/#lat=40.9324985&lon=-72.889255&z=17&l=0&m=b)

[Jay Flemma]

Personally I think you'd have to suck worse than Spaulding and D'Annunzio combined to hit any of those houses.  Even when I hit my goofiest hook, I still end up in Large Marge's bunker...

[John Kavanaugh]

Personally I think you'd have to suck worse than Spaulding and D'Annunzio combined to hit any of those houses.  Even when I hit my goofiest hook, I still end up in Large Marge's bunker...

Your swing must be tighter than your prose.  The two tees that are the darkest green appear to be wholly and partially left of the out of bounds.  Sadly I know a few double digit handicaps who can fly the ball over 300yds.  Those boys are going for that green and they more often than not hit the ball more than 15 deg off line.

[SteveOgulukian]

It's a shame what's going on with the 6th hole.  I played there twice this year - once in late may and one this past Friday.  On both days, the tees were up making it a 185 yard uphill par 3.  There's no yardage psted anywhere near the new tee box (original ladies tee I believe) so if you don't have a GPS it's a guessing game.  Not only is it a bad hole, but they took away one of the better thinking holes of the course.

My overall impression of the course is always less than stellar.  I was told by the pro that "the course is in great shape."  However, some of the tee boxes and greens were really chewed up.  And yes, the course played slow.  On the par 3 fourth, a playing aprtner of mine hit a wonderful low draw that shuold have landed 10 yards short of the green and rolled right to the front flag.  Instead, it never made it to the green.

It's a nice layout and even though it's not the toughest course, it's not easy either as the greens have a lot of movement to them.

[Garland Bayley]

1. Paul Turner is hilarious...comparing a daily-fee course with three of the most amazing, sand-based courses in the USA. Tall Grass is not completely (if at all) sand-based.

2. Turning #6 into a long par three is a shame. What a terrific par four I remember it to be in 2011.

3. It was soaked last year. Don't know what their goal is.

C'mon Ronald! Wake up and smell the coffee! A hole is not good or bad depending on the arbitrary number assigned to it as par.

A hole is good or bad. It cannot be a good par four and a bad par three.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()