[Joe Bausch]

Yesterday was less than ideal for photos, but I tried.  Some are still good, other less so (focusing an issue with a point and shoot in the rain).  

I'll have more photos later, but for me the greatest interest were the greens at Mountain Ridge (and I've used greens and not green complexes in honor of Ron Prichard!).  I've not played tons of Ross courses, but these were by far the most interesting and devilish [EDIT:  Aronimink's greens are pretty close, however!].

#1 (par 4).  Here you get the idea that this course might be a real adventure at the greens.  This pin position, right at the edge of slope leading to chipping area, was fun.  My approach found the greenside bunker left, then what I thought was a very good long sand shot kept rolling rolling rolling... and about 30 seconds later I had a chip back up to the green!







#2 (long par 4).  







#3 (shorter par 4)







#4 (long par 3).  This back right pin was so challenging... and this green so large.







#5 (par 4).





#6 (shortish par 5).  This back left pin was also fun.  It is on a little area running away from the front.







#7 (uphill par 3).







#8 (long downhill par 4).









#9 (uphill par 5).  It started to pour as we neared the green.







Perhaps these front nine greens will draw some discussion.  Back nine later.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

Thanks for the photo tour.

I was going to put the pin on # 2 back right or front right.

On # 5 I flirted with back left

and on # 8 I considered back right although back left is probably more diabolical.

What I think surprised everyone is how spectacularlly and true the greens roll, and that the greens are all poa.

[Joe Bausch]

For those out there that have played both MR and Pinehurst No 2, can you compare and contrast the greens?

And I've read how difficult the greens are at Oakmont, I think in part b/c of how fast they roll.  Yesterday the greens at MR were very fast and it was drizzling/raining!  For those that have played both MR and Oakmont, would MR's green be just as devilish as Oakmont (or more?!) if they ran 13+?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

In general, I'd say that Oakmont's greens have more slope but that Mountain Ridge's greens have more contour.

While most of Mountain Ridge's greens have slope, some especially pronounced, like # 7, # 17 and # 18, they tend to be more tiered, with pronounced contour.

Earlier this summer I played Oakmont and my host and my caddy were suprised and commented that I putted their greens rather well.
I explained that that was because the greens at my club were faster.
When they asked, "what's your home club ?" and I replied, "Mountain Ridge", they replied, "Never heard of it."
I then said, "You will, it's a great 1929 Donald Ross, that's really, really a good test, but fun to play"

At the time I played Oakmont, Mountain Ridge's greens were faster.
And again, like Oakmont, that's for daily member play.


Sadly, many clubs are looking to flatten their greens, robbing them of their character, just to get their speeds up.

If Cliff Moore, the superintendent at Mountain Ridge can get their greens to 13 on Poa, why can't everyone else, if that's what they want to do, rather than mutilate the contouring and flatten the slopes ?

[Joe Bausch]

Now for the back nine greens.

#10 (par 4).





#11 (par 4)











#12 (par 4)





#13 (par 4)







#14 (uphill par 3)





#15 (par 4)





#16 (par 3)





#17 (par 5)







#18 (par 4)

[Sean_A]

The greens don't look whacky to me, they rather remind me of Raynor.  One thing I can do less with is the rough pinching in the entry to the front of the greens with a bunker either right, left or both sides.  The tunnel look gets old fast.  It would be cool to have some holes where the rough is well back.

Ciao

[JNC Lyon]

The greens don't look whacky to me, they rather remind me of Raynor.  One thing I can do less with is the rough pinching in the entry to the front of the greens with a bunker either right, left or both sides.  The tunnel look gets old fast.  It would be cool to have some holes where the rough is well back.

Ciao

Sean,

The look might be there, but every hole gives the player plenty of room to bounce the ball on the green.  The approaches are plenty wide--definitely not pinched in the style of a Trent Jones course.  The ground game is very viable at Mountain Ridge.

[Sean_A]

The greens don't look whacky to me, they rather remind me of Raynor.  One thing I can do less with is the rough pinching in the entry to the front of the greens with a bunker either right, left or both sides.  The tunnel look gets old fast.  It would be cool to have some holes where the rough is well back.

Ciao

Sean,

The look might be there, but every hole gives the player plenty of room to bounce the ball on the green.  The approaches are plenty wide--definitely not pinched in the style of a Trent Jones course.  The ground game is very viable at Mountain Ridge.

JNC

You are missing my point a bit.  With the rough pinching in (on damn near every green) it creates a north/south course with little variety east/west with the recoveries.  Plus, I don't like the look (been playing links too long I guess) and can really appreciate some of the shaved areas to the rear of greens.  It isn't a matter of tright of wrong, just a different philosphy on how the greensites are presented. 

Ciao

[JNC Lyon]

The greens don't look whacky to me, they rather remind me of Raynor.  One thing I can do less with is the rough pinching in the entry to the front of the greens with a bunker either right, left or both sides.  The tunnel look gets old fast.  It would be cool to have some holes where the rough is well back.

Ciao

Sean,

The look might be there, but every hole gives the player plenty of room to bounce the ball on the green.  The approaches are plenty wide--definitely not pinched in the style of a Trent Jones course.  The ground game is very viable at Mountain Ridge.

JNC

You are missing my point a bit.  With the rough pinching in (on damn near every green) it creates a north/south course with little variety east/west with the recoveries.  Plus, I don't like the look (been playing links too long I guess) and can really appreciate some of the shaved areas to the rear of greens.  It isn't a matter of tright of wrong, just a different philosphy on how the greensites are presented. 

Ciao

Sean,

Take a look at the photos of the 11th green.  There are plenty of options for East-Wast recoveries on the golf course, and the 11th green is one of the best examples of that.  The 7th is another hole where rough encircles the green, but the green is designed to create multiple options for recoveries from sideways misses.  Many times the rough pinches the entrance to the green but hides features on the sides of the green that create variety.  Mountain Ridge has a lot going on around the greens, and it asks players to hit more than flop shots for recovery.

[Michael Whitaker]

The greens don't look whacky to me, they rather remind me of Raynor.  One thing I can do less with is the rough pinching in the entry to the front of the greens with a bunker either right, left or both sides.  The tunnel look gets old fast.  It would be cool to have some holes where the rough is well back.

Ciao

Sean - I agree. The greens look fantastic and I really like the "gathering" nature of the bunker designs. However, the grass grown right up to the edge of the bunkers seems to negate the "architecture" designed into them. I'd love to see the grass cut back from the bunkers and off the banks leading from the greens. It would give the course more of the look and (I would think) the playability of a UK course... which is what the pictures seem to suggest was the intent. As it stands now, it seems the only way to get into a bunker is to hit directly into one. Wouldn't it be more interesting if a ball could run off the green into a bunker or down one of the slopes like shots do in the UK?

[JNC Lyon]

The greens don't look whacky to me, they rather remind me of Raynor.  One thing I can do less with is the rough pinching in the entry to the front of the greens with a bunker either right, left or both sides.  The tunnel look gets old fast.  It would be cool to have some holes where the rough is well back.

Ciao

Sean - I agree. The greens look fantastic and I really like the "gathering" nature of the bunker designs. However, the grass grown right up to the edge of the bunkers seems to negate the "architecture" designed into them. I'd love to see the grass cut back from the bunkers and off the banks leading from the greens. It would give the course more of the look and (I would think) the playability of a UK course... which is what the pictures seem to suggest was the intent. As it stands now, it seems the only way to get into a bunker is to hit directly into one. Wouldn't it be more interesting if a ball could run off the green into a bunker or down one of the slopes like shots do in the UK?

Mike,

We had multiple people make that same suggestion to superintendent Cliff Moore after the round.  He agreed that the suggestion might bring the bunkers more into play.  However, he believed that this look would be extremely difficult and expensive to maintain.  Remember, the soil and grass conditions are much different in the UK than they are in the US.  It's easy to suggest that we maintain all bunkers here like the bunkers at Woking or Deal, but it is more complicated than that.  Also Mountain Ridge has many more bunkers to maintain than the UK layouts often do.

One compromise suggestion was that midcut be established along the bunkers to bring them more into play.  A higher cut of grass would not have the same gathering nature, but it would attract golf balls to bunkers more than the present cut.

You are correct, though, the bunkers at Mountain Ridge define more than they gather. I hit the ball poorly and was not in a bunker all day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The greens don't look whacky to me, they rather remind me of Raynor.  One thing I can do less with is the rough pinching in the entry to the front of the greens with a bunker either right, left or both sides.  The tunnel look gets old fast.  It would be cool to have some holes where the rough is well back.

Sean,

Quite simply, you don't know what you're talking about.

On the back nine, the greens are entirely open, and open very wide on # 10, # 11, # 13 and # 15.
On # 12, there's water right and a bunker left.
On # 14 it's an uphill par 3.
On # 16 it's a par 3 over water
On # 17, it's a Par 5 requiring a short iron/wedge to an uphill green.
On # 18 it's open from the left side, the prefered side to approach from

On the front side,

# 1 is wide open
# 2 is wide open,
# 4 is wide open
# 5 is wide open
# 6 is wide open
# 9 is wide open

# 3 is a very short par 4 requiring a wedge
# 7 is an uphill par 3
And, # 8 was originally a short par 5.

Please confine your comments to courses where you have a reasonable degree of  familiarity

Here, you have none

[Patrick_Mucci]

The greens don't look whacky to me, they rather remind me of Raynor.  One thing I can do less with is the rough pinching in the entry to the front of the greens with a bunker either right, left or both sides.  The tunnel look gets old fast.  It would be cool to have some holes where the rough is well back.

Ciao

Sean - I agree. The greens look fantastic and I really like the "gathering" nature of the bunker designs.

However, the grass grown right up to the edge of the bunkers seems to negate the "architecture" designed into them.

How so ?

Would you elaborate on that on holes like # 1,  2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15,

I'd love to see the grass cut back from the bunkers and off the banks leading from the greens.

It would give the course more of the look and (I would think) the playability of a UK course... which is what the pictures seem to suggest was the intent.


It's NOT a UK course.
It was never intended to be a UK course

And, if you were familiar with the greens you would see the wings or raised up perimeters, spines and contours directing surface water, (read rain) off the green and down the appropriate slopes away from the green

We played in the rain and the greens didn't puddle, they drained remarkably well and kept their speed, which had to be 11 + most of the day


As it stands now, it seems the only way to get into a bunker is to hit directly into one.

Not true.
Balls find a number of bunkers when bouncing or rolling off the greens
# 3, 5, 10, 13, 15,

Wouldn't it be more interesting if a ball could run off the green into a bunker or down one of the slopes like shots do in the UK?

If the ball is going to do that, so is surface water, causing the bunker banks to wash out every time it rains.
In addition, the underlying soil is clay, not sand, which would convert the bunkers into swimming pools when it rains.
Any other bright suggestions ?

The balls do run off the green, down into closely mown and rough areas

The golf course conforms to the 1929 detailed schematic prepared by Donald Ross.
Are you suggesting that the club ignore his plans and revise the course based on Sean's and your recommendations ?

[Sean_A]

The greens don't look whacky to me, they rather remind me of Raynor.  One thing I can do less with is the rough pinching in the entry to the front of the greens with a bunker either right, left or both sides.  The tunnel look gets old fast.  It would be cool to have some holes where the rough is well back.

Ciao

Sean - I agree. The greens look fantastic and I really like the "gathering" nature of the bunker designs. However, the grass grown right up to the edge of the bunkers seems to negate the "architecture" designed into them. I'd love to see the grass cut back from the bunkers and off the banks leading from the greens. It would give the course more of the look and (I would think) the playability of a UK course... which is what the pictures seem to suggest was the intent. As it stands now, it seems the only way to get into a bunker is to hit directly into one. Wouldn't it be more interesting if a ball could run off the green into a bunker or down one of the slopes like shots do in the UK?

Mike,

We had multiple people make that same suggestion to superintendent Cliff Moore after the round.  He agreed that the suggestion might bring the bunkers more into play.  However, he believed that this look would be extremely difficult and expensive to maintain.  Remember, the soil and grass conditions are much different in the UK than they are in the US.  It's easy to suggest that we maintain all bunkers here like the bunkers at Woking or Deal, but it is more complicated than that.  Also Mountain Ridge has many more bunkers to maintain than the UK layouts often do.

One compromise suggestion was that midcut be established along the bunkers to bring them more into play.  A higher cut of grass would not have the same gathering nature, but it would attract golf balls to bunkers more than the present cut.

You are correct, though, the bunkers at Mountain Ridge define more than they gather. I hit the ball poorly and was not in a bunker all day.

JNC

You are right.  It is a bit of a tradeoff with pushing the rough back.  Most likely bunkers would be left with Jupiter rings of rough - not a great look either.

Patrick

Go back and read my posts.  You are off on a typical wild tirade (likely brought on by the stellar start to the season ND is experiencing) which has little if anything to do with my comments.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

Go back and read my posts.  

I did.  Here's what you said.

One thing I can do less with is the rough pinching in the entry to the front of the greens with a bunker either right, left or both sides.  The tunnel look gets old fast.  It would be cool to have some holes where the rough is well back.

Your analysis is so incredibly wrong that it's comical.
NOTHING could be further from the truth,
But then again, you've NEVER set foot on Mountain Ridge.

There is NO such thing as a "TUNNEL Look" at Mountain Ridge.


You are off on a typical wild tirade

Not at all.
I'm just pointing out the absolute idiocy of your remarks.
The greens on all but the short holes and some par 3's are WIDE, WIDE, WIDE open.

I'd suggest that you see an eye doctor as soon as possible

You're 5,000 or 8,000 miles away and have NEVER set foot on Mountain Ridge.
I've been playing Mountain Ridge for 55 years and am reasonably familiar with it on a daily basis, but, you're going to tell us that the rough pinches in at the front of the greens causing a "tunnel look".

Please, confine your comments to topics you know something about, you obviously know nothing about Mountain Ridge

(likely brought on by the stellar start to the season ND is experiencing) which has little if anything to do with my comments.

Your desperate attempt to deflect the issue and focus from your total lack of knowledge and erroneous assessments won't work

[Sean_A]

Patrick

Go back and read my posts.  

I did.  Here's what you said.

One thing I can do less with is the rough pinching in the entry to the front of the greens with a bunker either right, left or both sides.  The tunnel look gets old fast.  It would be cool to have some holes where the rough is well back.

Your analysis is so incredibly wrong that it's comical.
NOTHING could be further from the truth,
But then again, you've NEVER set foot on Mountain Ridge.

There is NO such thing as a "TUNNEL Look" at Mountain Ridge.


You are off on a typical wild tirade

Not at all.
I'm just pointing out the absolute idiocy of your remarks.
The greens on all but the short holes and some par 3's are WIDE, WIDE, WIDE open.

I'd suggest that you see an eye doctor as soon as possible

You're 5,000 or 8,000 miles away and have NEVER set foot on Mountain Ridge.
I've been playing Mountain Ridge for 55 years and am reasonably familiar with it on a daily basis, but, you're going to tell us that the rough pinches in at the front of the greens causing a "tunnel look".

Please, confine your comments to topics you know something about, you obviously know nothing about Mountain Ridge

(likely brought on by the stellar start to the season ND is experiencing) which has little if anything to do with my comments.

Your desperate attempt to deflect the issue and focus from your total lack of knowledge and erroneous assessments won't work

Pat

If you stop for a moment and consider my posts perhaps the launching into yet another one of your boring and now very predictable rants could be averted.  Since you have been playing MR for so long it should be quite evident what I am refering to.  Ok, so you don't like my description.  That is fair enough, but it doesn't alter the fact that MR has a crud load of holes in which the rough crowds the greens.  I wish the rough were pushed way back on some greens to create a bit more variety in the approach look.  I understand this isn't terribly popular with a great many classic courses and I wonder why.  I think with the rough pushed back an attractive expansive look is created which can really help with mixing up the look.  Sure, some of it gets back to drainage for bunkers and making sure water flowing over the lips is a rare occurrence, but not all holes need bunkers on the flanks.  When the opportunity presents itself its not a bad idea to take advantage of it once in a while.  Here are a few examples of what I mean.

   



Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

What's deceptive about the approaches is that many bunkers and mounds of rough are 20 to 30 to 80 yards short of the green, giving the impression that the green is pinched in when in fact it's wide open.

Holes like # 14 and # 18 have this feature.

Hole # 12 has a right side water hazard

[Bill Brightly]

Sean,

If I understand what you are asking for, you want fairway height grass around every green. MR has a decent number of fairway height collection/runoff areas, but to do any more you would just about have to change ALL the green complexes and get rid of all the rough. That certainly would never work in a northeast US course. The expense of maintaining that much fairway would be huge.

It is also very hard to make it look right when you start cuting grass between bunkers and greens at fairway height. At some point, the rough has to start and it looks very odd indeed if the rough is on the outside of the bunker and not the inside.

I think your comment that you have been playing too much links golf is true. It is simply too much to ask parkland courses to look like links courses, it does not work.

[JNC Lyon]

Sean,

If I understand what you are asking for, you want fairway height grass around every green. MR has a decent number of fairway height collection/runoff areas, but to do any more you would just about have to change ALL the green complexes and get rid of all the rough. That certainly would never work in a northeast US course. The expense of maintaining that much fairway would be huge.

It is also very hard to make it look right when you start cuting grass between bunkers and greens at fairway height. At some point, the rough has to start and it looks very odd indeed if the rough is on the outside of the bunker and not the inside.

I think your comment that you have been playing too much links golf is true. It is simply too much to ask parkland courses to look like links courses, it does not work.

This subject was discussed heavily at the panel before the round.  Brad Klein made this point very clear: at Northeastern Parkland courses, chipping areas and shaven fairways around every green does not make sense. That takes the wedge and 8-iron option out of play, and everyone will just be putting the ball when they miss the green.  Mountain Ridge has enough chipping areas that encourage the 8-iron and putter (as well as the wedge), but it also has rough that encourages wedge play.  The balance was very good.

Bottom line, Sean, is that we cannot get Mountain Ridge or any other Northeastern Ross to look like Woking or Burnham around the greens.  The grass and soil conditions don't allow it.  Even if we did shave down everything, the short game variety that you are looking for would not be there.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

If I understand what you are asking for, you want fairway height grass around every green. MR has a decent number of fairway height collection/runoff areas, but to do any more you would just about have to change ALL the green complexes and get rid of all the rough. That certainly would never work in a northeast US course. The expense of maintaining that much fairway would be huge.

It is also very hard to make it look right when you start cuting grass between bunkers and greens at fairway height. At some point, the rough has to start and it looks very odd indeed ifthe rough is on the outside of the bunker and not the inside.

I think your comment that you have been playing too much links golf is true. It is simply too much to ask parkland courses to look like links courses, it does not work.

Bill

No, I didn't say ALL the greens should have the rough pushed back.  If collection areas can be down in the rear of greens, why can't the rough be pushed back on the wings of some greens?  I don't see any reason why a single green contour would need to be changed.  I surely can see that if bunkers are on all the wings than there is a potential issue not only with drainage, but also with the rough rings which typically circle bunkers on parkland courses when fairway surrounds a bunker.  I am not a huge fan of that look, but I am also not a fan of marooned bunkers or rough cut tight to greens.  I am saying a links look should be copied, I am merely advocating for a bit of variety, but nothing that would cost a club willing to maintian very quick greens all that much money as you suggest.  

JNC

Its not as if I didn't grow up on a parkland course.  I am not asking for any such thing as a links look.  

The use of any club off short grass on a parkland course is largely dependent on the conditions, but either way short grass allows more optons for the player - likely the better one is the more they take advantage of the situation.  All I am saying is that it would be nice if more space was available on the wings of some holes.  I am not saying there needs to be an overhaul of short grass theory or contours need to be changed.  MR already uses short grass to the rear of some greens so it isn't anything extraordinary I am suggesting.  But of course, I also think the visual effect of the course could be enhanced with some greens using short grass on the wings.  Its fine if people disagree or even if Brad disagrees, but to suggest that what I am asking for is out of the question is incorrect.

Ciao  

[JNC Lyon]

I am merely advocating for a bit of variety.

Sean, as I explain above, variety exists in spades around the greens at Mountain Ridge.  The greens and surrounding hazards ask the player to hit every conceivable type of recovery shots.  If you were to play the course, you would see that this is true.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

If you stop for a moment and consider my posts perhaps the launching into yet another one of your boring and now very predictable rants could be averted.  

No rant at all, just correcting your wild inaccurate assessment of a course you've never set foot on.

Since you have been playing MR for so long it should be quite evident what I am refering to.  

Ok, so you don't like my description.  

It's not a question of disliking your description, it's a matter of correcting your description since your description is wildly inaccurate.

That is fair enough, but it doesn't alter the fact that MR has a crud load of holes in which the rough crowds the greens.  

EVERY course in the Northeast has rough around the greens

I wish the rough were pushed way back on some greens to create a bit more variety in the approach look.  

As was pointed out, that's expensive to maintain and wouldn't look right.
A green within an island of fairway.
Can you name just five (5) courses in the Met area that have that feature ?
Can anyone ?
If not, there must be a reason.

I understand this isn't terribly popular with a great many classic courses and I wonder why.

With elevated greens, some views are obscured, but holes # 1, # 2, # 8, # 9, # 11 and 17 have fairway at the flanks of those greens.  You can't see it from some of the photos taken from the fairway due to the elevated nature of the green, but, it's there  

I think with the rough pushed back an attractive expansive look is created which can really help with mixing up the look.  Sure, some of it gets back to drainage for bunkers and making sure water flowing over the lips is a rare occurrence, but not all holes need bunkers on the flanks.  


Holes # 2, 6, 9, 11, 14,  don't have bunkers at the flanks


When the opportunity presents itself its not a bad idea to take advantage of it once in a while.  Here are a few examples of what I mean.
You've got to be kidding.

The first two have huge bodies of water next to the green, and in the second phot they can't even grow fairway grass let alone rough around the green.

And the 3rd photo has bunkers flanking the green.

Looks like sandy soil in some of those photos, not clay

Surely you have better examples than this

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am merely advocating for a bit of variety.

Sean, as I explain above, variety exists in spades around the greens at Mountain Ridge.  The greens and surrounding hazards ask the player to hit every conceivable type of recovery shots.  If you were to play the course, you would see that this is true.

JNC,

Stop wasting your time.

Sean doesn't have a clue with respect to what he's talking about regarding Mountain Ridge.

Variety ?

What variety, of the kind he's referencing, exists at Pine Valley, GCGC, NGLA, WFW, Oakmont or Mountain Ridge ?

He simply made a foolish statement based on NO personal experience and is now trying to defend his absurd conclusions by introducing more foolish elements.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Sean, I think you'd like Mountain Ridge a good deal.  If you recall when we played Mid Pines and Pine Needles about 5 yrs ago; Mountain Ridge had some of the same feel and scale of Pine Needles, with more interesting greens (as I recall; it's been 5 years). 

You liked a lot of the closely mown areas at Lederach, the first picture you posted; that course is maintained much too wet to actually take better advantage of it.  Which is a shame, because Kelly has designed a great golf course there.  I often wonder, if you could pick it up and bring it down here to the Pine Barrens are in southern NJ, with sandy soil, how much better it could play. 

Even though it was raining cats and dogs while we were playing MR, but there are so many ways to get the ball close to the holes there.  Looking back at the pictures, you always have the option to fly the ball in, or bounce it in.  (I forget if #7 required an aerial shot; Pat, please correct me if I'm wrong).  Look at the pictures.  You can fly the ball into #4, but it seems a better play in hindsight to hit the apron or front of the green, and let it roll over the ridge in the center of the green to access rear hole locations. 

16, you may need to fly the ball there, but it's a short iron shot, so it's not unreasonable. 

[Mike Hendren]

Patrick, what was the reason for leaving the 7th and 18th greens as is?  Unlike the remaining greens at Mountain Ridge, they appear to lack pinning elasticity, with back right and front left being the only possible pin locations at the 18th and the center of the 7th being the only possible location.

Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()