Eastward Ho!, not feel good...

[Steve Curry]

Mike Stachowicz and I were talking after our round at Eastward Ho yesterday and we agreed how much course knowledge is supreme at such places with so much movement.  It certainly isn't the feel good golf that seems prevalent, with everything right there for the eye to see.  Is that the essence of great classical architecture?  One has to master a knowledge of the landscape to succeed?


Regards,
Steve
 http://berkshirehillscc.tripod.com/greens.html

[Scott_Burroughs]

Sounds like a round for a first timer at The Old Course (so I've heard).  Lots of course knowledge needed.  Tobacco Road is similar that way, you need course knowledge to know where you can hit things.

Many good courses need this to better know the course.  I believe not everything should be "right there in front of you".

[ForkaB]

Steve

I think that the key to enjoying courses with a lot of "movement" is developing an eye for recognizing variations in topography, in a generic sense, and then playing accordingly.  This is very different from a requirement to have specific "knowledge" of a course to make it enjoyable or to be able to play it well.  Courses that require such knowledge are deficient, IMHO.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Rich,

That's why TR has yardage books and TOC has caddies, right?  Playing a place for the first time with a member is usually very beneficial.  They're only blind once.

[ForkaB]

Scott

Tommy Armour was wrong.  Blind holes are always blind.  The worst thing about them is you never get to see the neat bounces that you benefit from (or are punished by) once you "know" how the hole plays.

[TEPaul]

"This is very different from a requirement to have specific "knowledge" of a course to make it enjoyable or to be able to play it well.  Courses that require such knowledge are deficient, IMHO."

Rich:

Possibly this explains better why you're not so fond of courses like NGLA or even Cypress---as there may be things, mysteries and such that you may not see the first time or the first ten times.

Just imagine going out on a course and discovering something about it or how to play it the second time around or even the 20th, 200th or 2000th time! You may even feel you've been deprived, deceived or cheated out of something 20, 200 or 2000 times because you failed to notice it or take advantage of it! My God how horrible--how downright deficient it must be!

[ForkaB]

Tom

I am very fond of NLGA and CPC, even though my experience at each of them is very limited.  I just do not grovel before them and give them free passes from architectural criticism.  Neither course is perfect.

Vis a vis "knowledge" I learn something new every time I play any  course, but neither you nor I nor even Jean Dixon could play (for example) holes 2-6 on TOC even 20,000 times and "know" anything about what happened to our tee shots and why this happened, once they disappeared from our view.  We know where they end up but we are clueless as to how they got there.  That makes blindness a less than satisfactory "feature" to me.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Rich,

Any course with the features described above for EH (rolling/swaling fairways) absolutely MUST have blind spots, even in the fairways, even if the tee is elevated.  You can't have a course with that kind of topography and everything be in plain view.  What you seem to want, no blindness, means flat fairways and either elevated tees or uphill tee shots, otherwise, there will be at least SOME blindness.  

What about greens?  Must you see every roll of the ball on the greens?  Then you can't have any elevated greens.  All greens must be at eye level or lower or be tilted from back to front.  Sounds like pure boredom to me.

Part of the wonder/mystery/fun of golf (to me and I believe others here) is NOT knowing and seeing everything.  

I (perhaps wrongly) assumed you were a lover of classic architecture, but what you seem to describe is anti-classic architecture.

THE Redan is blind. Punchbowls/alps, etc. are blind.  These are not the only requirements for classic architecture, but just a few examples.

Obviously we agree to disagree.

[THuckaby2]

I (perhaps wrongly) assumed you were a lover of classic architecture...

Scott, how did you ever get that idea about Rich?  Not that he could ever be pigeonholed, being the top-notch contrarian he is, but in any case if such ccould be done, I'd say it would only be as a "lover of the game", with certainly no affinities for any "style" of architecture....

Outside of that I am staying the heck out of this heavyweight battle, Paul v. Goodale XVI.  

TH

[TEPaul]

Rich said;

"Scott
Tommy Armour was wrong.  Blind holes are always blind."

Rich:

My God is it painful to see you say this kind of stuff. Of course technically a blind hole is always blind and not constantly visible.

But consider a few things Max Behr wrote about this general subject--despite the fact you seem to be incapable of understanding the man;

"Blindness is the one type of hazard in golf which contains the element of mystery."

And furthermore how he may have recommended that a thinking golfer approach that element of mystery;

"On the contrary, hazards are pressure areas acting upon the mind. They make a call upon intelligence. And intelligence, in terms of pastimes, may be defined as the skill of the mind to cope with experience."

What could better explain or define what Tommy Armour meant by a blind hole is only blind once? You may not actually see it but your mind's eye (experience) should be able to see it and deal with it intelligently!

And you said;

"The worst thing about them (blind holes) is you never get to see the neat bounces that you benefit from (or are punished by) once you "know" how the hole plays."

Ahhh, poor baby Rich--he didn't actually get his demanded dose of complete instant visual gratification this time!

Max Behr looked at it thusly;

"Therefore if blindness be such that we are continually deceived, it is only natural that we should object to it. But if the deception is such that we can with intelligence overcome it, then it must certainly be accounted an asset."  

But perhaps to you if you can't actually see it your ability to experience and deal with it is someone diminished or at least your enjoyment is. Or perhaps in your existentialist way you feel if you can't see it then it isn't real independent of you!

To which Behr might reply;

"The golf architect, therefore, is not at all concerned with chastising faulty strokes. It is his business to arrange a field of play so as to stimulate interest. And interest "implies concern, not with ourselves, but with something independent(ly) of us."

[Scott_Burroughs]

"Where did I get that idea?"

Participation here for some time is part of it, also that reasonably long commute to his home club in Scotland that is rated as one of the top 20-30 courses in the world.  Why not join closer to home?

I admit not knowing much about Dornoch in terms of blindness/uncertainties other than the few pics here....but I'd figured it probably had some.

To each his own.

[ForkaB]

Scott

Consider THE Redan v. #4 NGLA.

On the 1st one, once your ball disappears over the "redan" feature at the front, you never see it again until you walk onto the green and find it, somewhere (usually through the back, at least for me).  Pretty boring.  On the 2nd one, however, you get to see most of what happens to your ball all the way down to the pin (in your dreams).  Lots of fun.  Much better golf hole, IMHO.

Huckster has pigeonholed me properly.  Love GCA, hate blind devotion to things such as "blindness".......

[TEPaul]

Scott Burroughs said to Rich Goodale;

"I (perhaps wrongly) assumed you were a lover of classic architecture, but what you seem to describe is anti-classic architecture.

Scott:

Are you kidding? Rich Goodale doesn't even know what classic architecture means. To him a hole is a hole is a hole. Architects are meaningless and architecture is just something you knock a ball around on with not much thought to anything other than that. Rich has claimed he really doesn't see things like hazards only fairways, flags etc. Rich doesn't really acknowledge golf architecture so why would he notice classic architecture or know what classic architecture means?

[ForkaB]

Scott

Firstly, sorry for my role in "hijacking" this thread.  I'd like to hear more about EH, a course that I have heard many good things about and one that I was planning to play last year, but had to unfortunately cancel.

Secondly, don't believe everything I say, or anything that Tom Paul says.  Dornoch is my "home" course because home is where the heart is, and I have played many hundred rounds there over the past 25 years.  These days, however, I play most of my golf at my 2 "nearer to home" courses, Aberdour and Burntisland.  All 3 of these "classic" (i.e. 100+ years old)courses have some "blindness" to them, but the best bits are the quirky bumps and rolls right out there in the open that you can see, try to analyze, try to plan and execute a shot to deal with, and then watch your handiwork succeed or fail, often due to apparently random, events.  TE Paul calls this "instant gratification."  I just call it "fun."  Quakers are funny people sometimes.........

[TEPaul]

Rich said:

"Scott

Consider THE Redan v. #4 NGLA.

On the 1st one, once your ball disappears over the "redan" feature at the front, you never see it again until you walk onto the green and find it, somewhere (usually through the back, at least for me).  Pretty boring.  On the 2nd one, however, you get to see most of what happens to your ball all the way down to the pin (in your dreams).  Lots of fun."  Much better golf hole, IMHO.

Rich:

Assuming the first one is North Berwick and the second one is NGLA you couldn't be much more wrong about NGLA. From where that hole was designed to be played by you you can't see the ball traveling across that green for much more than the right quarter of the green and then it's out of sight which a lot of people refer to as BLIND! The anticipation of havinng to walk up there and wait to see if the great shot you thought you hit worked out as well as you imagined it did is just a wonderful delayed expectation. But it seems the instant gratification mentality of the modern golfer simply can't even bear to accept that expectant delay. I think that's pretty sad.

[ForkaB]

Tom

None of the four studs in my group at NGLA were able to hit your "classic" shot, so I'll take your word for it.  I hit deliberately into the long left bunker from which I had an easy up and down.....BTW, you're at least 2 posts behind me now.  Work on your speed reading.

[TEPaul]

Rich said:

"but the best bits are the quirky bumps and rolls right out there in the open that you can see, try to analyze, try to plan and execute a shot to deal with, and then watch your handiwork succeed or fail, often due to apparently random, events.  TE Paul calls this "instant gratification."  I just call it "fun."  Quakers are funny people sometimes......... "

That's not what I call "instant gratification". I'm sure I like to see the ball bounce and roll across the ground as much as you do but what I call a person demanding of "instant gratification", such as yourself, is a man who apparently will not accept some occasional blindness in golf where that instant "visual gratification" is not available. That's exactly what you said on the first few posts you wrote on this thread until seemingly changing your tune on the last one.

You then said:

"Secondly, don't believe everything I say, or anything that Tom Paul says."  

Which of us then would appear to be the one not to be believed? First you say you don't like blindness at all and now you seem to imply you do. Hmmm--there seems to be a whole lot of consistency missing between what you say one minute as opposed to what you say the next minute.

Tom Huckaby is right. What you are in discussions of golf architecture is one really huge contrarian. I believe I know exactly why you are that.  

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Goodale -

Eastward Ho! is the most three dimensional course I have ever played, by far. Lots of courses have severe up, down and side hill topography, and this course has it in spades, but what really distinguishes Eastward Ho! (I do wish they would revert to "Chatham Country Club" - so much more mellifluous and WASPy - the exclamation point seems more suited for The Experience at Wialei !!!) is the interiour contours of the long holes - 4, 10 and especially, unbelievably, 17.

These fairways look like small mountain ranges, or large cubist paintings. The swales are so steep and enormous as to no longer qualify as swales - they are more like geometric planes and their arrangement is dramatic to say the least. I wish I had a topo map or some snaps of 17 - it's pretty damn interesting.

[THuckaby2]

Breaking my self-promise to stay out of Paul v. Goodale XVI... but my name's been mentioned several times, so I guess this is just courteous....

1. I was one of the "studs" playing NGLA with Rich and confirm his remembrance re our playing of THE Redan.  I particularly was the sad-sack, chunking it short of the front bunker!  We once discussed regretful shots on famous holes... this is the absolute worst for me.  But I digress....

2. Seeing "Tom Huckaby is right" warms my heart... it's been so long!    But just let me clarify:  I do find Rich to be quite the contrarian on here, but he's a "lovable" contrarian... if that makes any sense!  I attach no negative connotation to this term; rather, I just shake my head and chuckle at how he is always Al Pacino (the devil's advocate) in these discussions.

Now back to your regularly-scheduled debate....  

TH

[TEPaul]

Tom Huckaby said;

"But just let me clarify:  I do find Rich to be quite the contrarian on here, but he's a "lovable" contrarian... if that makes any sense!  I attach no negative connotation to this term; rather, I just shake my head and chuckle at how he is always Al Pacino (the devil's advocate) in these discussions.

I completely agree with Tom Huckaby. Rich is a very lovable guy--I sometimes even feel like hugging him he's so lovable. But I completely separate what I think about someone personally and what they say on here. On here Rich Goodale is one of the most nonsensical and convoluted contrarians on golf architecture imaginable--but that certainly doesn't mean I don't love the guy.

One can even see from this very thread that if you let Rich's contrarianism run rampant on a thread long enough he's such a contrarian that he will eventually come to even disagree with himself!

He does need to be constantly and verbally stomped on on here, though, and reminded what an illogical bubblehead he is for what he says on here.

If Rich doesn't be careful he's going to fall into the same category on here as Pat Mucci--and I swear to God it won't be long before I get that Hannibal Lecter mask strapped on Pat on this website.

[THuckaby2]

Well said, Tom Paul - keep up the great work!  We were surely languishing in your absence...  

TH

ps - one just doesn't get to type the word "languishing" often enough.

[TEPaul]

Now finally to the subject at hand--Eastward Ho! I've never played the course--never even seen it but from the pictures I've seen of it, the description on the "courses" section of this website and other remarks elsewhere about it I'd have to say it would be in a handful of courses I would most love to play and analyze architecturally.

And it appears that even among his own heathland architect compatriots that Fowler may have been believed to be by all of them perhaps the most naturally talented architect of them all!

[Randy Van Sickle]

It's actually 5 and 11 that are the "long" holes (4 and 10 are 167 and 215 one-shotters respectively).  5 plays to 497 from the tips and 5 plays to 487.  5 is a bit like Dornoch #4 in that you need to play the tee ball out to the left to avoid from running down the right off the fairway and into jail.

It is exceedingly difficult to get a perspective of the terrain of the course from photographs, although Ran's shots do a pretty good job, particularly the ones around 6, 7 and 8.

[ForkaB]

Michael M

Thanks for confirming what others have said (including Steve Curry in his initial post) about the interesting land movement at WH! (agree with you too and the hokey name--very declassee for a putatively Brahmin club).  I'll stand by my initial reaction that instantaneous interactions with the subtleties of such landforms are far richer if subsequent visitations do not need to be significantly enhanced by so-called "knowledge."  I'll also stand by my consistency on this thread, despite Tom Paul's misinterpretations of my impeccable logic and perspicaicty.

One of these days I'll get back to Chatham, probably not until the next 5-year MBA reunion, at which time I will be so addled that even if I had any "knoweldge" of the course I wouldn''t be able to apply it.  I'm sure I'd get a lot of instant gratification, however.........

[Randy Van Sickle]

Make that 11 plays to 487.