Give an airplane ride to folks from the west coast (i.e. Emperor) and after a visit or two they are quick to laugh at people (to wit -- me) who have seen the courses in question a range of times from say 25-30 years of perspective plus played them a whole bunch more and it's quite amusing from my side of the aisle.
Tommy -- get real almighty Emperor of "The Look." I don't doubt for a millisecond the quality of the dunes holes at Maidstone -- but where's the rest of the beef! Oh -- wait a second -- who cares how a course ultimately plays -- it's the "look" that counts big time. For a layout to be routinely included among the troika of SH and National is indeed hilarious because too many people are quick to rag on about the lack of quality holes at other courses (i.e. The Bridge and modern courses) but somehow develop Alzheimer's over no less than 1/3 of Maidstone's layout. And then you get the folks who chime in, "well when the wind blows 40-50 or more mph you should really see these holes. And blah, blah, blah! And if the queen had b*lls she'e be the king!
Jim Michaels:
Go see Olde Kinderhook in the Albany, NY suburbs and you'll find the answer to your question.
Jonathan Doyle:
Fisher's Island is one of the two Raynor courses I have in my personal top 50 -- the other being Camargo. To be frank -- Fisher's Island has quality holes through the bulk of the layout (not to mention the incredible scenery) -- it isn't a Maidstone which is disappointing in my book with the few exceptions already noted for the dunes holes.
I have said already that The Bridge suffers from the constant pattern of forcing players to go full out on the driver throughout the round. The longest of hitters can step down a notch but the elevation changes are a demanding sort for players unable to get the ball in play and with some distance off the tee to boot.
Fisher's Island also uses the property in a much more complete manner -- not just upo and down as you find at The Bridge. You get a wide differentiation of holes and the way they are routed through the site. When a course is short it needs to bring forward additional qualities because of the absence of length in order to hold the interest of the longer and better player. Fisher's Island does this beyond Maidstone and in my mind is way beyond the tired and boring holes you find at Shoreacres (see opening and closing holes as an example) -- another of the revered (but overrated Raynor courses) that is often touted by those here on GCA.
Nigel Walton:
To date I have not played Friar's Head and as is my custome (which others do not follow) I cannot comment on the merits / lack thereof of any course I have not played. I also do not comment on courses from just observing aerials and the like. I just don't have that talent as others do. I will say this -- the positive comments I have heard from a cross range of people has definitely made me interested to play it if that should come to pass.
slapper:
I hear what you say but have to offer the following. The Bridge does put pressure on the player to hit driver -- as someone who hits the ball a decent ways -- I can attest that The Bridge is extremely demanding off the tee from the tips in no less than the manner you get from BB.
A number of the other courses you mentioned don't have the type of intensity which I believe is the benchmark in seeing how much dexterity you have with the toughest club in the bag to hit consistently -- the driver. Some of the short layouts you cite (Maidstone, Westhampton, The Creek) all have a number of holes that are simply p-e-d-e-s-t-r-i-a-n. Yes, there are the renown holes at all of the three aforementioned courses but once again you and others have amnesia and forget to cite these holes. But, I forgot they were designed by "x" architect and they so much charm and help me while I get a kleenex and begin to sob at all this blather.
I have said that The Bridge falls behind SH, NGLA, BB, GCGC in my personal listing of courses for the Island and I have played everything worth a lick there save for Friar's Head. There are issues with The Bridge and when you say recoveries are certainly less demanding I beg to differ. Play the course when the greens are mega firm -- as they are NOW -- and don't ever short side yourself. One other thing -- just make sure that any stray shot gets to the sand because if you get hung up in the high grass you're sure to make a major league donation in score.
People forget about the major elevation changes -- not just downhill -- that forces you to play long and high approaches. Many courses may have one of these holes -- The Bridge has several.
When you say The Bridge lacks for so much and then you have the gumption to harp to me about how great Hamilton Farm is I have to wonder (with all due respect mind you) when you have had your eyes last checked.
You're the guy -- help me if I'm wrong -- who actually believes Hamilton Farm is in Jersey's top ten and that Somerset Hills is beyond Baltusrol Lower and that Shoreacres is really so wonderful.
R-e-a-l-l-y? Surely you jest ...
Mr. Sturges:
I have said over and over again that Shinnecock Hills is my personal #1 course in the USA. It has been tested at the highest level of competition and can be played by average members on a daily basis. As Tom Doak has said -- few can say such a thing.
I have also said that a very gentle tweaking oif SH (adding some length on a few holes -- such as the par-5 5th) is ALL that is needed for the '04 Open. I don't want Shinnecock to be the Carnoustie version for our national championship. SH has performed admirably in the '86 and '95 Opens and doesn't need to be some glorified bowling alley of 20-25 yard wide fairway that force players to club down on all the key holes. To paraphrase an expression mentioned about Ronald Reagan when others sought to change him -- let SH be SH.
Regarding National I would say much the same. These two courses are the bedrock of American architecture in my mind. NGLA was the cornerstone that pioneered what golf design should be and clearly Macdonald was a man way ahead of his time.
National doesn't come to life as Maidstone does for just a few holes IMHO. National has a superb ebb and flow of a cross section of the grandest schemes in golf design and quite frankly I believe is the quintessential member's course in the USA.
Regarding the last question -- let's say for arguments sake that Maidstone and Shoreacres would be among the list of courses I would say were great from yesteryear. I don't doubt they still have unique and special qualities -- but top 50 in the USA? Help me to hold back my weezing at such a thought. One other thing -- I have a good cross section -- at least I think I do -- of courses from the modern and classic eras among my personal courses of choice. When I see courses such as Plainfield CC and Wannamoisett still trailing the likes of the two just mentioned something is seriously wrong.
By the way -- I've been quite frank in my listing of courses how bout you do some soul searching and post yours? I'd be curious to see your listing of top modern courses from say 1960 on besides the likes of Sand Hills, Pac Dunes, etc, etc.
One last comment -- I have said The Bridge is not architecturally compelling in a significant way to be included in a top 100 listing but I also believe a few folks are being overly tough on a course that does have a number of positive features which I have pointed out. No, it's not in the company of the Island's premier courses but it's still got plenty more than a few of the other "pet" favorites that have been cited.