[Keith OHalloran]

Tom Doak asked for people to rate courses built since 1995. Friar's Head got ** (which on the current Doak scale ie very good) and less from many people. I have never rated a course, and I have not played as many course as most on this site, but I have played Friar's. I would like people to explain why it is not in the top. I would rate it as one of the top 5 I have ever played, pre or post 1995.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Keith,

It's certainly a wonderful golf course in a terrific setting.

You'll have to address those who rated it below your expectations why their evaluation was low.

[Adam Clayman]

The evals on this site have always been the most unscientific method ever created. There are plenty of people who don't vote, and there are some who don't make lists about their favorites. 

There's no reason FH shouldn't be a 3*** course. 

[ed_getka]

Keith,
    Most of course rating comes down to personal preference.  I happen to pay more attention to the ratings of those who tend to like the same type of courses as I do. We all have biases.
    It has been 6 years or so since I played FH, but a few things I remember about the course that held it back a bit IMO were the 2 par 3's (?#4 and #12) that were essentially carbon copies from a shot value point of view of each other just going in opposite directions. There is a hole or two where you transition into and out of the old potato fields where it just felt overdone in terms of bunkering. It felt forced. The finish is a bit off-putting with #17 and 18 interrupting the flow of the course IMO. 17 is essentially a do or die par 3 with nowhere to miss. 18 lines up oddly off the tee (although not an issue for a member who knows the line). On the plus side there are some brilliant holes at FH. I particularly remember #5? the brilliant short par 4 that challenges no matter how close you get to the green off the tee. An uphill par 5 that doglegs left (?#13) up into a natural amphitheater. #16 has a great green complex that reminds me of a Gibraltar-type green. I loved the challenge of the opening hole with the demands of the uphill approach shot. A fantastic place to play golf, but just a few shortcomings that keeps it off my top 5 list. In no particular order I would put Royal Dornoch, Prairie Dunes, Sand Hills, Crystal Downs, Pacific Dunes, and St Andrews ahead of it right off the top of my head. It doesn't make FH a bad course, it just means there are some really great courses in the world.

[Mark Saltzman]

AC,

I have not played FH. Many here have and gave it a 2* rating while they gave courses like Ballyneal and SH 3*. Undoubtedly FH is of 3* calibre and one could argue it's merits, but I would be interested in hearing from those that gave it a 2* rating where they felt the course was lacking compared to the 3* courses.

I am a very interested observer.

[Ryan Farrow]

I would give it a 3 *** as well, If they could put any golf course in an art museum, this one would be it.

[Tom_Doak]

Keith:

I like Friar's Head a lot, but I only gave it two stars because I think it is clearly a step below Sand Hills. 

Friar's Head would get a 9 on the Doak scale, which would make it one of the 25-30 best courses in the world of any age, and which would put it just into the top five modern courses.  But, I would never think of it among the top five of all time, and I don't know that you could find too many people who would agree with your assessment there -- I don't know too many people who would rate it ahead of Shinnecock or National, for example.

[Kevin Pallier]

Keith

I thought it was a very good course certainly up there with some of the best that I've seen but there were a few things that hold it back for mine from being in the top echelon.

Like Ed I felt a couple of holes were over bunkered particularly those at the begining of the round # 2 and # 4 for starters. # 5 through # 7 was a great stretch though then the next highlight for me was the P3 10th and then say the 14th to 16th.

The P3's overall weren't overly strong IMO and probably it's biggest drawback. That said - it's still a very good course but just a notch below the courses I rate superior to it eg: Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes for starters.

[Jerry Kluger]

I think perhaps the problem is the scale of  1 to 3 which makes the rating a bit off.  Like Tom said, it is a 9 out of 10 which probably means it cannot be a 3 out of 3, it might be a 2.8 out of 3.   I think every hole on the course is really good with some being outstanding.  I would compare it to Colorado Golf in so far as there is some really interesting parts of the property and others which are not so interesting and where FH is so much better is the interesting part of the property.  To me, CG was a much better design on the flatter parts of the property and FH is really good on all of the property.

[John Shimp]

I rated friars head a 2* but really loved it. My issue is that I haven't played any of the modern likely best ( SH, PD, barnbougele, RCCC) and at the top to me win, place, or show not top 10.  I have played a number of c&c courses and consider FH the best but looking at sand hills or rock creek cattle photos or watching the uspl at old mac and PD look more appealing and the golf looks more excitsing than it is at FH.  I have played shgc, Ngla, and Maidstone and like FH more than only Maidstone.  I also actually enjoy playing Dormie and chechessee more than FH but believe it is still "better" because of the wind and the way the property changes during the round. 

[Terry Lavin]

Sounds great.

[Jim Franklin]

FH is fantastic. It's major problem is it could be #4 in Eastern LI behind Shinny, NGLA, and Sebonack. I still gave it 3* though.

[John Shimp]

Jim
Is FH really behind Sebonack?  I haven't played it but that got my attention. Thx

[Keith OHalloran]

Tom,
Our views of FH are fairly similar. When I said I considered it top 5, I meant my personal top 5, and I do not have a Wardian like portfolio. I think you would also be surprised how many people say that FH is "the second best course on the east end". I know that is almost sacrilegious on this site, but it is said often.

[Jim Franklin]

Jim
Is FH really behind Sebonack?  I haven't played it but that got my attention. Thx

I have them both in my personal top 20 so it is very close. Sebonack is VERY good.

[mike_malone]

 FH discussions seem to yield general positives and specific negatives.

[Rob Rigg]

I preferred FH to SH because I thought the routing was more dynamic and interesting. When I think back to Friar's I can picture almost every hole in my head and how the routing moves away from the club house and back, then away and back again as it crosses over the huge dunes and moves closer to the water. The pacing of the course is fantastic and I thought it was a brilliant walk.

The 18 holes at SH are stronger taken individually, but I think the way Coore wove the 18 together is more compelling at FH.

I realize I am in the minority - but I do believe it is a very special place and the type of course I would enjoy playing again and again.

Friar's has an interesting almost polarizing element.

No disputing how awesome the showers are, but that is another topic entirely.

[JC Jones]

Tom,
Our views of FH are fairly similar. When I said I considered it top 5, I meant my personal top 5, and I do not have a Wardian like portfolio. I think you would also be surprised how many people say that FH is "the second best course on the east end". I know that is almost sacrilegious on this site, but it is said often.

Do they sell logo belts in the pro shop?

[Jim Franklin]

Tom,
Our views of FH are fairly similar. When I said I considered it top 5, I meant my personal top 5, and I do not have a Wardian like portfolio. I think you would also be surprised how many people say that FH is "the second best course on the east end". I know that is almost sacrilegious on this site, but it is said often.

Do they sell logo belts in the pro shop?

FH does have the second best logo in golf.

[Adam Clayman]

Jim, Sheryl, my resident artist, doesn't care for the stick logos. Every time I wear it, she just has to comment how it's too small and unsubstantial. She believes it's a logo that needs to be 3 feet tall.

Robb Rigg, You're not alone but you are swimming against the current with the suss hoes.

[Rob Rigg]

Adamm,

Always the name calling if someone dares to prefer a course to SH. 

Suss hoes - ouch!

[Bill_McBride]

Adamm,

Always the name calling if someone dares to prefer a course to SH. 

Suss hoes - ouch!

Definition of "suss hoe?"   Doesn't sound nice!

I haven't been to Sand Hills yet but it has to be a wonderful course if it's substantially ahead of FH.   I have heard it's a tough walk, where I found FH to be a great walk.  The uphill transitions, the par 5s #7 and 14, are superb in the way they get you back up on top without a lot of heavy breathing.

[Jerry Kluger]

Bill: I don't think the walk at SH or FH or for that matter, Ballyneal, is very tough except for the fact that they are built on sandy soil which can be tiring when walking from green to tee. Chambers Bay can be a challenging walk if you hit it crooked as some of the dropoffs from the fairway can be pretty severe and the climb back up can be a bear.

[Emil Weber]

I havent played it or been near to it, but when I look at Ran's review, the pictures make me want to play as bad as any. And nobody argues that it is one of the best courses around, so why bother wether people give it a 2 or 3 star ranking?

[Terry Lavin]

deleted

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()