News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2017, 10:42:09 AM »
Worst course on Tour by far.


Birdie opportunities are practically non-existent unless you happen to hit a good wedge on one of the two unreachable par 5s.

And good luck with the par 3s if the greens are super firm (like they were in 2016, when Firestone played as by far the toughest Tour stop).


Winning score the last 17 years has averaged in the 260s.  Tiger shot 259 one of those years.  The birdies can't be too hard to come by: the winners have averaged under 67 for each round. 

Mike Schott

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2017, 11:21:13 AM »
Perhaps a different measure is in order.


If you had to make some effort to get there, (say more than 500 miles away), would it be on your wish list?


Tough standard. That would be a pretty exclusive list in the US. I'd want to play Firestone because of it's history. But I'd drive 15-20 miles further to play Brookside instead.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2017, 12:44:54 PM »
Perhaps a different measure is in order.


If you had to make some effort to get there, (say more than 500 miles away), would it be on your wish list?


Tough standard. That would be a pretty exclusive list in the US. I'd want to play Firestone because of it's history. But I'd drive 15-20 miles further to play Brookside instead.


I should qualify that its nothing personal against FIrestone. A lot of the PGA Tour venues have zero interest to me.  I'm guessing I could rattle of at least a dozen I wouldn't care to play even if just passing thru otherwise....



Paul OConnor

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #28 on: August 03, 2017, 01:48:21 PM »
Something everyone can cheer..

Dustin Johnson just hit a 439 yard drive on #16. 

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2017, 02:05:21 PM »
I had the opportunity to play both the North and South courses.
Well conditioned but without coffee I had no reason to stay awake.

Perhaps If I could elevate my 5 wood into the par 4 approaches and stickum the experience would have been sublime.
Unfortunately the challenge was redundant and not worth a trip to Ohio.

Loved Scioto and Muirfield though.
Played 18 on each course on the same day in less than 7 hours with a caddie.
Now that was a memorable day!!


Had you moved up a couple tee boxes, you would have had less than 5W into more holes.

Jeff Churchill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #30 on: August 03, 2017, 08:54:37 PM »
Hi Brian

Sage advice

Played the South from the Whites at 6475 yards.
It was cold and wet but I still found it a snoozfest.
Very friendly staff though.

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2017, 09:45:51 PM »
Hi Brian

Sage advice

Played the South from the Whites at 6475 yards.
It was cold and wet but I still found it a snoozfest.
Very friendly staff though.


My favorite part of your recollection of your round was the part about you saying you nearly fell asleep. Nice touch.

BCowan

Re: Firestone
« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2017, 09:49:35 PM »
I had the opportunity to play both the North and South courses.
Well conditioned but without coffee I had no reason to stay awake.

Perhaps If I could elevate my 5 wood into the par 4 approaches and stickum the experience would have been sublime.
Unfortunately the challenge was redundant and not worth a trip to Ohio.

Loved Scioto and Muirfield though.
Played 18 on each course on the same day in less than 7 hours with a caddie.
Now that was a memorable day!!


Scioto and Smurfield village aren't that memorable. 

Greg Chambers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #33 on: August 04, 2017, 02:06:25 AM »
Something everyone can cheer..

Dustin Johnson just hit a 439 yard drive on #16.


The chicks dig the long ball
"It's good sportsmanship to not pick up lost golf balls while they are still rolling.”

Jeff Churchill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2017, 09:49:18 AM »
I had the opportunity to play both the North and South courses.
Well conditioned but without coffee I had no reason to stay awake.

Perhaps If I could elevate my 5 wood into the par 4 approaches and stickum the experience would have been sublime.
Unfortunately the challenge was redundant and not worth a trip to Ohio.

Loved Scioto and Muirfield though.
Played 18 on each course on the same day in less than 7 hours with a caddie.
Now that was a memorable day!!


Scioto and Smurfield village aren't that memorable.

Hi Ben

Better weather
Better scoring
Better company
Better courses than Firestone have rendered my recollection of that day as singularly exceptional.

Cheers

Bill Crane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #35 on: August 04, 2017, 01:57:11 PM »
Links Magazine has posted a Tony Dear article about Firestone related to it's besmirched Golden Age heritage - with comments from Msrs. Doak, Hanse, Smyers and others.

https://www.linksmagazine.com/golf-course-architects-review-firestone-cc-south/


Pretty good stuff, but consistent with the Tree House party line.   Nice to see a summary of the 50s/60s/70s style in context of current forward thinking in GCA from another source.

"Though it would probably be unfair to suggest Jones is wholly responsible, what he did to the South Course as well as all the others, did have a major influence on course architecture at the time"

That's for sure!
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 01:59:42 PM by Bill Crane »
_________________________________________________________________
( s k a Wm Flynnfan }

Nigel Islam

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2017, 02:44:20 PM »
Brian,
   I've never played Firestone (or in Cleveland which seems to be a hugely underrated golf city), so I was wondering if you felt the course would be better with some tree removal? Or do you feel the trees are integral to the experience?


I'm not suggesting or criticizing, rather just asking your opinion.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #37 on: August 04, 2017, 02:46:15 PM »
Bill nice post.


The last bit of the article says this, which I sure hope to hell doesn't happen.


"Everything in all fields of design comes back again sooner or later. In a 2050 LINKS newsletter, we may be celebrating the 1950s and ’60s just like we do the Golden Age now."

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #38 on: August 04, 2017, 02:49:41 PM »
Brian,
   I've never played Firestone (or in Cleveland which seems to be a hugely underrated golf city), so I was wondering if you felt the course would be better with some tree removal? Or do you feel the trees are integral to the experience?


I'm not suggesting or criticizing, rather just asking your opinion.


It's a fair question. I do think some tree removal would help, particularly on the 18th hole. But I don't think the South course is as narrow as it appears based on aerials.

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #39 on: August 04, 2017, 03:59:14 PM »
Brian - I agree.  The South has actually done a pretty good job with tree removal.  Most trees are large stately oaks pruned very high off the ground.  In fact, Firestone has done a much better job with tree removal than most other big name courses.   The trees are not a problem at Firestone.  Firestone is criticized mostly due to the aerial pictures making it look monotonous.  It isn't but for some people on this site can't think individually and find it easier to recite the accepted message. 


Ran and others created this site at a time when strategic architecture was desperately missing and needed a voice in the industry.  It has been tremendously successful and now it is the politically correct architecture.  However, maybe the industry has gone too far.  There is a place for penal architecture.  I loved Gil's quote in the article for that reason.

In my opinion, Firestone South is a very good golf course.  I wouldn't say it is great, but it is well worth a play if you ever get a chance.  It is penal golf that is a great test of golf.  The green complexes are varied and actually pretty exceptional.  I prefer a couple other courses in Ohio to it (ie. Brookside), but I can appreciate it for what it is - a great test of golf. 

For the record, I don't mind people criticizing it or any other golf course.  That is what is great about this site.  However, be consistent and criticize Oakmont in the same manner.  At Oakmont, 1,9,10,11,12,15 all are "army golf" from the clubhouse and offer no more strategy than many holes at Firestone.  In fact, 1 and 10 are two dead straight penal holes that involve almost blind luck on getting your approach shot to stop on the greens. 

Why is Oakmont sacred and Firestone is criticized so much?  Because it is acceptable now to say that it came from the "Dark Ages"?

For the record, I also appreciate Oakmont for what it is....a penal golf course. 
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 04:08:17 PM by Michael George »
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #40 on: August 04, 2017, 04:02:38 PM »
.
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

Peter Pallotta

Re: Firestone
« Reply #41 on: August 04, 2017, 04:27:18 PM »
If I read the article correctly, a greater percentage of tournaments played at Firestone have been won by major champions than at any other course on tour. Pebble Beach comes in 2nd.
Peter

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #42 on: August 04, 2017, 04:51:37 PM »
If I remember correctly...Kavanugh offered a type of analogy several years ago on this site

It went something to the effect of, if he's going to be beat up it may as well be by a hot S&M Dominatrix as opposed to a crusty old codger.  Firestone and Pine Valley are two penal brutes that would no doubt whip my azz into next Sunday but take a guess which one is which and would love to give a go...

John Mayhugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #43 on: August 04, 2017, 04:53:05 PM »
I've never played Firestone, and what I've seen on television doesn't inspire a trip.  It is interesting to see the comparison with Oakmont, which I have played.

Oakmont is a very difficult course and penal, but does not feel like a grind at all.  There's so much variety and interest in the green complexes, and even though many holes parallel each other, bunkering and land contours really keeps you from noticing.

This representation of Firestone South (from the ClubCorp site) matches the impression I have acquired over the years.  Does not describe a kind of course I'm eager to see.
Noted for it’s length, the par-70, 7,283 yard South Course includes a series of intimidating, long par-4 holes and one of the longest par 5’s anywhere.  The 16th hole plays to 667 yards.  A pond in front of the green captures its share of errant shots.  Usually, the casualties aren’t the result of futile attempts to reach the green in two.  They are third shots from players who hit errant tee shots and find the woods.  A well-placed long tee shot does not guarantee the opportunity to get home in two.  Players, however, have a birdie opportunity on the only other Par-5, the 497-yard second hole. 
The 18th hole, though, is all the par-4 anyone would ever want to play.  At 464 yards, it is long, narrow and has a green defended by bunkers.  It’s not a place to expect to make a birdie to win.

 
The 16th hole doesn’t have the market covered on length.  Before you even get there, the par-3, 221 yard, 15th provides enough of a challenge.  The flat green makes for a straight putt, but getting the ball close to the hole can be a problem.  From the tee, bunkers on the left of the green are hidden and provide for unpleasant surprises.

 
If a 221-yard par 3 isn’t enough, try the 200-yard 5th hole.  The small green can be reached with a 5- or 6- iron but you might need as much as a 3-iron when the wind is blowing.  Strange as it may seem, it is not one of the toughest scoring holes.  That honor goes to two of the par 4’s.  The 6th hole is 469 yards of heartburn.  It has ranked as the second- and first-toughest challenge for professionals at Firestone over the years.  When Robert Trent Jones redesigned Firestone into “The Monster” in 1959, this hole made par an excellent score.

 
The 471-yard 4th hole is another test.  All the hole asks a player to do is hit a long and straight tee shot followed by an approach shot that must come in high to hold the elevated green.  Sometimes easier said than done.  But then again, that’s the best way to sum up Firestone Country Club’s South Course.


Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #44 on: August 05, 2017, 05:30:12 AM »
Is Firestone a fairly flat property in which wind is not a huge factor? If so, I never understood the back and forth "problem".  To me, it is a big bonus if courses meander around properties if there are hills/certain features to hit upon and wind is a major factor. On a flat property where wind doesn't play a major role I don't see how the routing moving around the property is something to prize.  Of course, one could argue that if the trees were ripped out then wind would be a much bigger factor and therefore....

I spose much depends on what style of course we are talking about.  I don't care for back n' forth, penal green wall courses, but I recognize that golf needs all types of designs because not all golfers are seeking the same thing when they play.  To me its a better exercise to discuss courses in their mostly in the context of what the design is intended achieve.  We may disagree on those goals and how the course seeks to achieve them, but we shouldn't dismiss the style out right.  That isn't to say I am demanding folks stump for a trip to see a course they aren't overly keen on seeing, but perhaps see courses in their own light.  The same could be said for defenders of the darg age style.  Why is Firestone (or wherever) better or not than similar designs?  Just saying its meant to be a tough track etc doesn't really further the conversation. 

Its a big world with plenty of room to cater to all  8)

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

BCowan

Re: Firestone
« Reply #45 on: August 05, 2017, 06:31:11 AM »
Brian - I agree.  The South has actually done a pretty good job with tree removal.  Most trees are large stately oaks pruned very high off the ground.  In fact, Firestone has done a much better job with tree removal than most other big name courses.   The trees are not a problem at Firestone.  Firestone is criticized mostly due to the aerial pictures making it look monotonous.  It isn't but for some people on this site can't think individually and find it easier to recite the accepted message. 


Ran and others created this site at a time when strategic architecture was desperately missing and needed a voice in the industry.  It has been tremendously successful and now it is the politically correct architecture.  However, maybe the industry has gone too far.  There is a place for penal architecture.  I loved Gil's quote in the article for that reason.

In my opinion, Firestone South is a very good golf course.  I wouldn't say it is great, but it is well worth a play if you ever get a chance.  It is penal golf that is a great test of golf.  The green complexes are varied and actually pretty exceptional.  I prefer a couple other courses in Ohio to it (ie. Brookside), but I can appreciate it for what it is - a great test of golf. 

For the record, I don't mind people criticizing it or any other golf course.  That is what is great about this site.  However, be consistent and criticize Oakmont in the same manner.  At Oakmont, 1,9,10,11,12,15 all are "army golf" from the clubhouse and offer no more strategy than many holes at Firestone.  In fact, 1 and 10 are two dead straight penal holes that involve almost blind luck on getting your approach shot to stop on the greens. 

Why is Oakmont sacred and Firestone is criticized so much?  Because it is acceptable now to say that it came from the "Dark Ages"?

For the record, I also appreciate Oakmont for what it is....a penal golf course.


Michael,


Excellent post, uve convinced me to tee it there next year!  U coined a new phrase "PC architecture", impressive.

Jeff Shelman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #46 on: August 08, 2017, 01:31:04 AM »
I don't want to steal Hoover's thunder from Twitter, but the place certainly played firm and fast this weekend. And we like that, right?


I have never even driven by the place or stepped on the property. The lack of variety in terms of direction of the holes isn't great, but I'd be happy to tee it up there.

« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 01:32:45 AM by Jeff Shelman »

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #47 on: August 08, 2017, 07:07:22 AM »
I don't want to steal Hoover's thunder from Twitter, but the place certainly played firm and fast this weekend. And we like that, right?


I have never even driven by the place or stepped on the property. The lack of variety in terms of direction of the holes isn't great, but I'd be happy to tee it up there.


We like firm and fast, but only if it's on one of those select courses of which we collectively approve. Otherwise, the ball just goes too far, there's no strategy, etc.

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #48 on: August 08, 2017, 10:06:10 AM »
Brian - I defend Firestone and penal architecture for what it is.  However, Firestone isn't strategic.  The land is better than shown on TV and the green complexes are very good, but it is penal golf, not strategic.
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Firestone
« Reply #49 on: August 08, 2017, 10:28:14 AM »
Brian - I defend Firestone and penal architecture for what it is.  However, Firestone isn't strategic.  The land is better than shown on TV and the green complexes are very good, but it is penal golf, not strategic.


Fair point, but it isn't obvious to me that Firestone is penal golf. I would think water hazards and forced carries when I think of penal golf. But that's just me.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 10:44:06 AM by Brian Hoover »