[Matt_Ward]

Mr. Zuckerman:

Help me to understand something -- if you have not played the course Olde Kinderhook you're observations are simply based on how the course "looks" right?

A number of people on GCA have this thing about how a course "looks" and to be candid that may be important you but let's not forget the more important point IMHO -- is how a course "plays." Since you have not done that thus far the issue of how a course "looks" is no more important than looking at a food presentation and failing to comment on how the dish actually tastes. In simple terms -- it's really incomplete IMHO.

Also -- when you say it looks like a Rees Jones course. My answer is -- so what? If you play the course you will find how the routing and the maximum variety of holes in tandem with the splendid terrain makes for a superb test of golf and if one plays the appropriate tees there's plenty of elasticity for all types of players.

Somehow I find your comment it looks like a Rees Jones course to be some sort of putdown because of other Jones courses you have either seen or played. I don't doubt that Rees has designed a fair share of courses that were merely average, or even poor in quality, however, the flip side also includes quite a few winners -- I count Olde Kinderhook among his best efforts.

If / when you play the course I'd be most interested in your playing comments -- rather than armchair analysis simply on the merits of a few posted pictures. Isn't that a bit more fair to the architect and to those who wish to get more direct information from an actual visit?

[Michael Dugger]

I did say, ask mom!!!

Don't you think those edges look rather ragged for Rees.  Unkempt, not edged with a razor blade.

Don't you think the shapes of the bunkers look irregular, and that goes for the fingers and mounds in/around them.

If a lot of earth was moved it looks great!  

Don't you think the course looks like it fits the landscape, it doesn't look superimposed on the property like so many Rees bombs?

I am one of the biggest anti-Rees guys around, but this one appears slightly different.  Don't get me wrong, it isn't the second coming of Sand Hills or anything, but can you concede it is at least a step CLOSER to what we are always complaining about in RE: a Rees Jones design?

Gotta fly, reruns of Little House on the Prairie just came on.


Aw shucks, Pa, where's Almonzo?

[GeoffreyC]

Based on some private messages I remembered that I had some photos of Olde Kinderhook.  The greens look better in the photos then I remembered and the natural use of the landforms, surrounding structures and the bunkering is as good. The first photo is of the 2nd hole and is the only containment other then #1 I believe.  Its still a teriffic hole to play.

Enjoy

[Mike_Cirba]

Speaking of aesthetics, who the hell is that balding, tall, left-handed guy who doesn't seem to know how to carry his bag?  Talk about unnatural looking!!!

[GeoffreyC]

Mike

How did you know he was left handed?  

I suspect he was still all disoriented from 2 hours of wandering around the Hudson Valley with a left handed left brained driver looking for the golf course amd then rushing to the tee.-

[scott_wood]

several members at OKGC enjoy hosting GCA members, a feeling that has been reinforced by the fun we've had with past players

If anyone has the desire, email Paul Perrella or me and we'll see if we can "work out" agreeable dates.

Cheers

[GeoffreyC]

Scott is indeed a wonderful host and I would encourage individuals to take him and Paul up on their most generous offer.

Scott- would you mind filling in some details to the photos.

As mentioned, the 1st is the tee shot on #2

The second is the tee shot on #3 (par 5).  The greensite is shown in Turbo's photo.

[ed_getka]

OK is the first original work I have played done by Rees Jones and his team. Scott was nice enough to have my brother and I out to see the course. Unfortunately mother nature decided to rain on our parade and the course was not in its usual firm and fast conditions from the heavy rainfall they have had this summer. Scott was a great host and knew a lot of background on the course development which was very interesting. The owner who developed the course has some ideas that have impacted how the course turned out (i.e. the mounds are for spectators, not containment, for future major tournaments).
  I felt overall the routing was pretty good, taking holes in many different directions, and working through some rather difficult terrain in some areas. The greens were fairly interesting with some being downright diabolical (but fun). The bunkering work is quite good and penal, if you don't have a sand game it'll be a long day. I think the containment mounding is the biggest detractor from the course, even if it is meant for spectators.
   Without playing the course under the usual conditions I really don't have a final opinion, other than to say golfing with Scott or Paul is a fun day no matter where you play. I had a chance to talk with Paul after my round with Scott and I look forward to seeing the course again in the future.
  One interesting observation by Scott is he doesn't quite understand why Matt holds the course in such high esteem. I would have to agree with that after seeing the course. Its not just Matt who extolled the virtues of OK here on GCA, so I'm not picking on Matt. It is a very good course, but I'm not sure about the top 100 comments.

Scott,
 I'm still working on the bag tag.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()