[mike_malone]

  I played here yesterday. The accumulation of years of green cmte. tree plantings , fairway narrowings, obsession with soft condtions overcame the classic design that was hidden underneath. It seemed a modest course to start with but was smothered by the interventions over the years. I was surprised by its ranking in Golfweek.


   The capper was on the last hole. Rather than integrate the course into the clubhouse they had a dense row of evergreens between the green and the clubhouse.  It was the back of the clubhouse but I think some imagination there would have gone a long way.

    There were many deep bunkers by the greens but they were separated from the green by deep rough. I felt the famous narrow green would shine more if the threat of rolling into the bunkers was more pronounced.

  The potential distinctiveness of the course was homogenized by the interventions.


    

[mark chalfant]

Brother  Mike,

Are you playing with fire again ?


p.s.  how would you compare Fenway to Philadelphia CC, Spring Mill

[mike_malone]

  I don't think I can fairly compare this to any Flynn I have played. They are all more challenging , use the land more pleasingly , have more natural looking features , have more variety throughout , and have withstood the onslaught of technology by their inherent elasticity. Gollfweek ranks this higher than any Flynn in Philadelphia. I sense a Metro N.Y. bias in these rankings.

  

[Bill_McBride]

The deep rough between greens and greenside bunkers sounds heinous.  Have you seen the bunkers at Metropolitan in Australia on TV?  They are exactly the opposite, deep bunkers that cut right into the putting surface.  It's a great look.  What you describe sounds awful.

[Anthony Gray]

   Mayday,

  Do they butter their toast there?

  Anthony

[mike_malone]

 The clubhouse service is exactly what you should expect from a top tier country club in N.Y.

[Mike Sweeney]

   The capper was on the last hole. Rather than integrate the course into the clubhouse they had a dense row of evergreens between the green and the clubhouse.  It was the back of the clubhouse but I think some imagination there would have gone a long way.

Mayday,

I have not played it, but I would have guessed that you would have liked Fenway based on others who have played it.  (Thanks for thinking of me!) A famous guy here said about 18:

18th hole, 570 yards; Just as the 290 yard 1st hole makes for an excellent start to a match, the Home hole at Fenway is equally appealing as a finishing hole as anything from an eagle to a double is possible.What makes both holes are the interior contours oftheir respectivegreens.In the case of the 18th, the green is 65 paces (!)deep and the different hole locations on certain plateaus bringeachof thevariousgreenside bunkers into play.

http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/fenway-golf-club

I think I really want to play it now that Mayday has put it on his "I hate NY list." It is a pretty good list!

[Sean_A]

 I played here yesterday. The accumulation of years of green cmte. tree plantings , fairway narrowings, obsession with soft condtions overcame the classic design that was hidden underneath. It seemed a modest course to start with but was smothered by the interventions over the years. I was surprised by its ranking in Golfweek.


   The capper was on the last hole. Rather than integrate the course into the clubhouse they had a dense row of evergreens between the green and the clubhouse.  It was the back of the clubhouse but I think some imagination there would have gone a long way.

    There were many deep bunkers by the greens but they were separated from the green by deep rough. I felt the famous narrow green would shine more if the threat of rolling into the bunkers was more pronounced.

  The potential distinctiveness of the course was homogenized by the interventions.


    

Mayday

On parkland courses its standard fayre to separate greens from bunkers with rough as part of the pinching in of fairways.  I know Mucci disagrees, but he is an egghead with a contrarian agenda no matter what is discussed. 

What did you like about Fenway? 

Ciao

[mike_malone]

 Sean,

   A small buffer of rough seems usual on parkland courses but 4/5 feet of rolled over turf which would usually hurl balls into the bunker are less useful when the rough is so deep.

    What I liked was the first par five.

     Mike Sweeney,

   I accepted the invite based on Ran's review. The first hole was among the least inspiring I could recall on a quality course. My problem with 18 wasn't the hole it was the trees that separarted the course from the clubhouse.

[mike_malone]

 The course was a modest member's course to me. My topic was about how what might have made it more attractive was covered up.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

   A small buffer of rough seems usual on parkland courses but 4/5 feet of rolled over turf which would usually hurl balls into the bunker are less useful when the rough is so deep.

    What I liked was the first par five.

     Mike Sweeney,

   I accepted the invite based on Ran's review. The first hole was among the least inspiring I could recall on a quality course. My problem with 18 wasn't the hole it was the trees that separarted the course from the clubhouse.

Mayday

You won't get any arguments from me about marooned bunkers so long as drainage isn't an issue.  The problem is it seems to be the classic US parkland courses which are at least as guilty about this as ANYBODY.  One poster on the Mountain Ridge thread went so far as to suggest it would look wierd to have greens and bunkers act as islands in a sea of fairway - go figure.    

Surely you liked more than one hole.  Think about the course without its presentation issues.

Ciao

[mike_malone]

 Sean,

     I wonder if the early architect's like Tillinghast were hired to do virtually the same thing at each site.  I find his unnatural looking features jarring as opposed to Flynn's more natural features. I admit bias. So, Fenway was  sort of a knockoff and , therefore, I wasn't moved.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

     I wonder if the early architect's like Tillinghast were hired to do virtually the same thing at each site.  I find his unnatural looking features jarring as opposed to Flynn's more natural features. I admit bias. So, Fenway was  sort of a knockoff and , therefore, I wasn't moved.

Mayday

I am not terribly concerned with natural looking features so long as the features in question have an effect on play.  To me, Fenway looks one of the more interesting Tillie or Flynn designs.  If the greens are as good as folks say, its a shame the club doesn't seem to have sorted out the tree issue because imo the best greens are ones which make the ideal recovery shot ever so tempting, but very often foolish.  In truth, Fenway is one of the few Tillie's I would really like to see.

Ciao

[Adam Clayman]

I saw Fenway on my recent visit. Did not play, but had an extensive tour. I was also fortunate to meet Mayday, who might be more interested in stirring the pot, than meaning literally every word, and, I respect and like that.

It's true Fenway has had some about face moves, when it comes to their tree program. And it is true that it has some green green grass, but, under this years circumstances, and the recent rains, understandable. The shrouded in rough bunkers is what I call 'the Westchester county look' and is a function of wanting to keep up with the Jones(Wing Foot).

Since Gil is involved with both courses, or at least helped Fenway get their act together starting 10 years ago, the trend for Ol' Fenway, has to be seen as a positive one.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I have to run out and play with my son, but, I'll be back.

I just wanted to comment that if you played the 18th hole at Fenway and your complaint was that there were trees between the green and the clubhouse, you missed more than you saw.

It's a terrific finishing hole, with a demanding drive, second and third shots, and, a green with plenty of slope and contour.

The options on that hole are many.

Fenway is a very, very strong golf course.

While green committees may have planted trees improperly, surely you saw the incredible foundation created by AWT ?  ?  ?

How did you like the 3rd hole ?

[mike_malone]

  Pat,

     The third hole was nice. I liked the layup area and the green. My comment about the trees on #18 was prompted because it seems to be evidence of a mindset that the course and the clubhouse should be separate. I think they should be integrated where possible.

    What makes Fenway a "very,very strong course "? I thought it was modest.

 

[mike_malone]

 It probably isn't Fenway ,per se , but I may have just reached my limits on classic courses that are maintained like Fenway . It reminded me of Westchester in that way. It is infuriating to deal with strategy eliminating trees and deep rough on mounded bunker faces and soft fairways that  totally eliminate whatever was originally intended.

   My favorite was  #7 where I hit a drive in the left center of the fairway. The green was perched up wonderfully with a huge bunker protecting it. This was a very strategic design.  I, however, had no options for my shot. A large tree forced only one chance---hit a hook. This is what I call "death by green cmte.". That entire line of trees between #7 and #11 is ridiculous. Here you have possibly the nicest slopes on the course that are obscured from view and play.

 #8 , where the green is almost shared with a parallel hole ( where I suggested that they join the greens at the rear even though it was not original ) there is  some interesting mounding down the left side which is now totally enveloped by trees. This shows a total disregard for the original architect's ability. He surely knew the left side was the shortest approach and would design at the green to account for that.

    I can imagine how hard Gil Hanse is working to change things there.

    I do have a question. On one of the par threes (#4 ? ) there was a marvelous ridge coming in from the right that was NOT maitained as putting surface. While I could see that some putting surface expansions had taken place throughout the course here I wondered

    Is the original intent for more putting surface there?

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Fenway is Winged Foot "lite" -- with emphasis on the word "lite."

People who can't stand getting their butt whooped at WF -- see Fenway as the more usuer-friendly alternative.

[mike_malone]

Matt,

   I imagine that is correct. But, that is the main reason why you would not want to hide the design. What makes "lite" courses fun and charming is the player's interaction with the design.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Fenway and even QR are less "intense" than what one gets at WF -- especially the West Course.

I agree -- there are plenty of things that can be done to open up the design and not hide it. Fenwat is a fun course that doesn't really accentuate the need for length and accurary to be married so closely as they are at WF.

Amazingly, but not surprisingly, many people rate courses primarily from the "I" perspective and how it fits their game.

[mike_malone]

 I just went back to look at Ran's review. The trees on #18 have grown dramatically since his photo and now totally obscure the clubhouse.

   Matt,

      I never pay attention to my game when I am playing a course for the first time. I enjoy looking around , observing , and comparing.

    I'm considering a chance to play WFE soon. I'm hoping to find a good course in Metro NY sometime

[JC Jones]

Mike,

Do you think that who you played Fenway with might have caused a negative feeling about the experience, generally?

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

You may not do it -- but many people assign a rating or viewpoint to a course based on how it fits their game.

Fenway is a fine course -- were you that completely underwhelmed by what you saw ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

 Pat,

     The third hole was nice. I liked the layup area and the green. My comment about the trees on #18 was prompted because it seems to be evidence of a mindset that the course and the clubhouse should be separate. I think they should be integrated where possible.

    What makes Fenway a "very,very strong course "? I thought it was modest.

What tees did you play from ?

What would you estimate the green speed was.

The greens are very, very  difficult.
Small with a lot of coutour and slope.

What did you hit into # 2, # 5 and # 6 ?

What's the slope at Fenway from the back tees ?

Some, if not many, think it's tougher than WFW from the same distance

  

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

    In your honor we played the green tees; I think they would consider the greens fairly slow that day ; I didn't find the greens scary in anyway . Need to start my conference call now.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()