Maidstone

[grandwazo]

I'll throw my two cents in here, having played all of the above in the last year.  I must be missing something, but Maidstone is a great golf course in my book, every hole offers you a test, starting with #1, yes you can hit it pretty much anywhere off the tee, but the shot into the green is pretty difficult, especially if there is any kind of breeze blowing at all.  The second hole is a bear, the third hole (par 3 over water, right?) is very, very tough, both off the tee, around the green and on the putting surface.  I could go on, but I think it's a great golf course, #3 after NGLA and Shinnecock on the East End (I haven't played FH yet), Atlantic and the Bridge don't come close.
Rockaway Hunt Club was in terrible shape this summer, practically under water.  Three holes were unplayable.  The holes redone on the water are nice, but this is not a great golf course.....to be continued.

[blasbe1]

Chipoat:  On the South Shore of Nassau I prefer Seawane/RHC equally, then MiddleBay and than Inwood.  I actually joined Seawane over Inwood, in part b/c of the facilities and in part b/c at the time Seawane had just passed the renovation budget.  I believed at the time that SW was a better layout and still do.  I also think RHC has the best layout in the area, the 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 are very special holes.  

Sandman:  Obviously I'm biased but I think you're completely off with your comments.  First, Kay is very laid back about the whole thing and draws up plans and advises but the work is really done when the shaper gets his hands dirty, he's not seeking any grand recognition in this and the actual changes are often very different than his plans.   We haven't touched the routing, we've kept every green intact and been true to most bunker locations.  Once complete it will look much more like Emmet's design than it did 3 years ago.  One regret is that we took out the cross bunker on 17.  Based on the aerials from long ago Emmet's design featured virtually no trees with waste bunkers/mini-dunes between holes so it was more like strips of green fairway surrounded by sand . . . plus there were no houses in the area so there were many clear views of the bay and it was even more wind influenced than it is now.  So, in reality, short of bulldozing the neighborhood, nothing can truly restore Emmet's design.  While I truly wish that changes weren't made in years past . . . the current membership made a commitment to revive an old sleeping links course, what awakes will clearly be much different from what was born in 1927 but I think it will be a dramatic improvement on what lay dormant in 2001 (in my opinion).  

Hamilton B. Hearst:  My understanding is that Kay worked on #13 and the driving range at RHC.        

[Dennis_Harwood]

I would say its vastly underrated!

Of all the Hampton courses, and I've played them all more than once, I would prefer on a day to day basis play Maidstone over all the others--

If I could join only one course in the Long Island area (and perhaps the East Coast) I would prefer Maidstone over all others including National, Shinnecock, Atlantic.


If you factor in the entire golf experience, variety of holes, membership, ambiance, changing conditions, and just enjoyment of play, Maidstone wins.

Is it the toughest--No (if that be the criteria).  Is it the most fun to play with a different challenge each day-- Yes--

And that's really what its all about isn't it?(from a west coast guy who puts Pebble No 1)

[grandwazo]

With regards to Inwood, it's a course in my opinion similar to Engineers on the North Shore that time has passed by and although the character of the layout remains intact, between the planes flying overhead, the green flies that will eat you alive and it's location bordering Inwood, an area that is simply dangerous to make a wrong turn in,  it's just not that fun to play.  

Engineers and Inwood hold on too tightly to the memories of national championships played in the past, and I think that if the courses had stood the test of time the MGA/PGA would continue to use the layouts today for the sections championships and they don't.

Sewane is another story and honestly, I think it's even a step behind the Woodmere Club close by, which consists of two nines that couldn't be more different, a renovation plan that only concentrated on rebuilding holes falling into the water disregarding the style/character of the inland nine.

Seawane, although located in an exclusive neighborhood fell on hard times in recent years and the renovation plan was a last ditch effort to save the club.  The club house has areas of marble extravagance, combined with locker rooms and a pro shop out of the Catskills in the 1950's.  

The course, especially the holes on the water seem to have been squeezed in and have no character other than the fact that they are on the water.  The small channels that run through this area allow homeowners access to Reynolds Channel, but between low tides and the stagnate water, this is really not water you want to be on.  Maybe back when it was first built, when the area was a summer haven for NYC residents there may have been some isolation to this area, but with the charictature housing in this area, it's pretty scary.  

There are some interesting green complexes, but the 150 to 500 yards that precede them are pretty non descript.  There are a couple of long par 4's, the hole numbers escape me that run parallel to the road that disects the course that is a tough test, but all in all, I don't enjoy the course or the club experience.

Note should also be given to the Lawrence Club which is a public course for the residents of the town of Lawrence, which also has a few holes on the water and views of homes in what is referred to "the back of Lawrence" similar to RHC.  

Between RHC, Lawrence, Inwood, Seawane and the Woodmere Club you might be able to come up with a decent 18, but on their own, they simply don't stand up to the North Shore and Piping, the Creek, Fresh Meadows, Deepdale, Old Westbury, Pine Hollow and Glen Oaks.  The beach clubs however are another story, and having spent many a summer between Lido, Long Beach and Atlantic Beach, it's a great place to be, just not to play golf.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Was formerly a member of the Lawrence Beach club but have not played the RHC in about five years.  I think you are underestimating the strength of the course.  No better place to be on a quiet late weekend afternoon.  Though not spectacular and certainly not particularly long holes 1,2,4,6,7,8,9,12,13,17,18 are pretty darn good holes.


Will have to play Fresh Meadows,Glen Oaks and Old Westbury some time as I have not heard of them being that as strong as Inwood & Rockaway.  That said Maidstone is still in my top five on LI.  Friars Head,National,SH,GCGC in no order.

[grandwazo]

Hamilton, sitting on the deck after my last round at RHC I certainly can attest to the beauty of the place late in the day.  The staff, the pro shop and the very, very old clubhouse all had great character.  The grass tennis courts are pretty special too.  I agree that the holes that were recently bulkheaded on Reynolds Channel are pretty well done, pretty hard and pretty nice, but that's all of three holes.  They have tremendous problems with drainage on the course and the last time I was there we played a hole that was covered with goose feathers and goose crap from tee to green and had standing water throughout It was simply unplayable.  

[grandwazo]

Fresh Meadows, Old Westbury and Glen Oaks in that order. Fresh Meadows from the tips is a bear, always in very good condition, the greens in particular are beautiful.  The course shares the same topography as Deepdale on the other side of Community Drive.  It's a good test and supposedly has the most single digit handicaps of any course in Nassau County, it's only 15 minutes from NYC on the LIE with no traffic.   Old Westbury just finished rebuilding two of their nines, the third had already been redone, a great track.  Glen Oaks also has three nines, very consistent throughout, long, tough, very, very big greens.  

For me, I'll take my home course with my pals on a late weekend afternoon, playing wolf for $5 hole.  

[blasbe1]

Grandwazo:

I invite you to come back to Seawane when we've completed the project.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion . . . so here's mine . . . while I wouldn't begin to compare Seawane to the Hampton classics, it is a great course to play day in and day out.  While sometimes there's no accounting for taste, I've had guests from clubs all over the Met area and I speak with many who compete in the Richardson Invitational  and virtually all really enjoy the course b/c of the layout and the wind . . . and most have had very positive things to say about the renovation.  In addition, with our recently new superintendent (going into 4th year) our green conditions stand up to any in the Met Area.  

If you think number 4 is squeezed in you’re claustrophobic . . . it’s one of the best short risk reward 4 pars around.
 
If you don't like the "club experience," I can't help you there but it sounds to me like you've got some kind of axe to grind.  Good luck with that.

Lastly, comparing the links courses on the South Shore with the North Shore courses is silly.  Totally different, perhaps with the exception of the Creek that I think is just a spectacular mix of links and parkland golf.  

Golf is about enjoyed competition.  For me, learning about golf course architecture is about gaining an educated understanding of the playing field and an aesthetic appreciation for what I believe to be an art form . . . I enjoy most all courses and most discussion about them . . .
but some of the banter on this website sickens me.   Case in point, how much crap went back and forth about Hidden Creek?  I played it . . . it's awesome . . . who cares if it's better than this course or that course b/c better in this discussion often comes down to taste, which, since you prefer Woodmere to Seawane can certainly vary among reasonable people.  

[grandwazo]

blasbe1, I look forward to returning after the work is finished and I wish you luck with it.  I have no axe to grind, and I apologize if I insulted your club and course.  My wife grew up in the area, and we have friends that lived on the course for over 15 years so I spent an awful lot of time looking at the course besides playing it half a dozen times. I really don't like the course, I'm sorry.  I played it two years ago and I was very disapointed in the layout and the condition.  My opinion, I'm entitled to it.

I take exception to is your thinking that Seawane is a "links style" course.  I am certainly no expert, but I don't think the definition is simply that the course has to border water and in Seawane's case, bulkheads running the length of the water on every hole it presents itself.  Yeah, it's flat, but come on.  Seawane is about as far away from a links style course as I can imagine, I've played Ireland and Scotland and you're not even close, but if the architect told you that is what you were going to end up with, and it makes you feel good to describe it that way, go for it.

As far as the comparison to North Shore courses, I think it's a fair comparison, some of the clubs I mentioned are very "social" clubs, not considered pure golf clubs, and Seawane fits in this category.  You have plenty of tree lined holes, plenty of private homes overlooking the course and you draw your membership from the surrounding area.  The course is very tight, too tight, and feels very forced.  The risk/reward hole you talked about is purely forced, and feels it.

I didn't say that I liked Woodmere, just that it was better than Seawane, especially the new holes on the back.

I belong to Muttontown and I am very, very aware of the shortcomings of our course.  It's pretty, that's about the only nice thing I can say about it.  Our new green superintendent did more in a year to bring our conditioning up then the previous supers did in twenty years.  Our long time Green Chairman, a member of GCMC, Old Marsh and Loxahatchee tried as hard as he could to turn it into something special, but he had nothing to work with to start with.  We need to start over again and I only hope we're lucky enough to be able to blow it up and start over again.  We've had Steve Smyers, Forse, Nicklaus Golf and others in to look the place over, and if we're lucky we'll end up with a golf course that equals our clubhouse and surrounding facilites.

I've played a lot of great courses and you know pretty quickly in your heart if the course merits discussion of architecture, aesthetics, conditioning, etc, our respective home courses don't.

[blasbe1]

Grandwazo:

I take no offense . . . just have a reasoned opinion when you are critical.  I frankly find your reasoning weak.  

Seawane is a links course, by anyone's definition, it is adjacent to a body of water and the course was built on the land as it laid.  A perfect example is the tee shot on 4 over the channel with the channel in play all the way down the right side of the hole.  Remember also, when Emmit designed the course he had little restrictions and the layout is exactly the same now as then so at least one other person beside me would disagree with your "forced" opinion.  Unfortunately we did have fairways that were overrun with trees b.c prior memberships tried to emulate Fresh Meadows et al.  Thus the tree lined fairways you mentioned should never have been there and are mostly gone.  I also think you're a little hard on your own tract too (btw, the clubhouse there is one of the best ever so use that as a measuring stick and you'll likely be frustrated).  Conditioning everywhere depends largely on the time of year, I played Fresh Meadows for the first time this year and found the conditioning poor, the tract is still great.  

For some reason, I have never met more people being critical of other courses than I have while playing these interclub events that both of our clubs participate in, everyone's got a complaint about how this is no good or that is no good blah blah blah . . . play Seawane with an open mind next time and I think you'll enjoy it.  

[HamiltonBHearst]

blasbe1 could you tell me what clubs participate in the Richardson? Thanks.

[blasbe1]

The Richardson is a Long Island Golf Association invitational tournament that we host every year, generally drawing the top LI amateurs.  It's played in May so it's a season opener of sorts for the LIGA . . . the "interclub" matches I that referenced before are between an affiliation of nassau county clubs (I believe the affiliation is comprised of most of the non-gentile clubs in nassau).  

[grandwazo]

"Reason" can be subjective, I've played enough great golf courses around the world that even with my limited architectural knowledge I can tell what "feels" natural to the eye and what doesn't.  Which holes set up off the tee for different kinds of players, what shots a course asks a player to bring with him, whether or not the greens accept the shots the architect forces you to hit into them, it's not written in a book anywhere with rules that can be specifically applied.

I'm glad to hear the trees lining the fairways, especially the holes near the clubhouse have come down, but if my recollection is correct, so many of the holes play directly adjacent to each other it could get dangerous out there.  A lot of your tee boxes were periously close to greens to faciliate the back and forth layout.  I like courses that allow for a short walk to the next tee, but not a walk back into or even with areas that misguided approach shots may land. I also think the holes on the water are the worst holes you have, not the best.  

Having played Ireland this past summer and looked out to the sea on courses like Ballybunion, Waterville, RCD and Doonbeg, I think it's a stretch for any American to describe their course as a links style course.

A search on Google turns up a  definition of links provided by Donald Steele, whose written books on links golf as well as designed courses defines them as follow, "the strip of land which links the sea with more fertile land, often set among dunes. The best terrain for golf is sand and that kind of land has minimal agricultural value -- which makes such places ideal".  

They also generally, by definition play 9 holes out and then 9 holes in.  I'll give you that Devereaux laid it our pretty much according to the lay of the land, but he didn't have much choice, it was a nothing piece of land.  Now if he had been able to go out on to Reynolds Channel, along Harbor Drive where all the million dollar houses are, then we'd have something to talk about but I'll continue to think that the holes bordering the "water" are the most unnatural water related holes I've ever played.  The water is there, but it's not natural, its forced.  Add to it that you feel like you can reach across it and touch the powerboat docked nearby, its tacky, there, you made me say it.  Sorry.  

One more thing, the green flies you find at Seawane, Woodmere, Inwood and RHC are just ridiculous.  

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Inwood is a truely great courses that is slowly cutting down trees--more need to come down--the layout, which is the issue is phantastic.  The elite players of the Met PGA section never destroy the couse under tournament conditions--in fact the Met PGA championship will be contested there in 2004. Under tournament conditions the greens (very firm--normal is overwatered and soft) make approach position very strategic.Under tournament conditions(which should be normal) driving is very difficult and position in fairway critical.  By the way, 10 back pin positions become the most difficult wedge shots imaginable--its amazing how many good players make bogey when they could simply knock an SW to 30 feet below the tier and take an easy par!   As for Seawane,  it has a fond place in my heart and they have some members who really care about returning it to its past glory.  I don't think  Kay has been given free reign to make another 14th at Hampshire mistake.  Those who criticize the jaggedness of the mounds will be mistaken in years as the elements make the mounds settle into a more natural flow.  The 4th has to be the best drivable risk/reward hole in met NY--10th at Creek is a very close 2nd.              The real point of my topic was that Maidstone is ranked over Lahinch, Cruden Bay,Hoylake,Kinsbarns,Bandon Dunes, and Nairn among great links courses.  I like Maidstone, but not enough to rank it over the above mentioned.  This does not include a host of great parkland courses.  I certainly enjoy Somerset Hills more than Maidstone.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Inwood is a truely great courses that is slowly cutting down trees--more need to come down--the layout, which is the issue is phantastic.  The elite players of the Met PGA section never destroy the couse under tournament conditions--in fact the Met PGA championship will be contested there in 2004. Under tournament conditions the greens (very firm--normal is overwatered and soft) make approach position very strategic.Under tournament conditions(which should be normal) driving is very difficult and position in fairway critical.  By the way, 10 back pin positions become the most difficult wedge shots imaginable--its amazing how many good players make bogey when they could simply knock an SW to 30 feet below the tier and take an easy par!   As for Seawane,  it has a fond place in my heart and they have some members who really care about returning it to its past glory.  I don't think  Kay has been given free reign to make another 14th at Hampshire mistake.  Those who criticize the jaggedness of the mounds will be mistaken in years as the elements make the mounds settle into a more natural flow.  The 4th has to be the best drivable risk/reward hole in met NY--10th at Creek is a very close 2nd.              The real point of my topic was that Maidstone is ranked over Lahinch, Cruden Bay,Hoylake,Kinsbarns,Bandon Dunes, and Nairn among great links courses.  I like Maidstone, but not enough to rank it over the above mentioned.  This does not include a host of great parkland courses.  I certainly enjoy Somerset Hills more than Maidstone.

[Tom_Doak]

I think Maidstone is a great place and a great golf course too.  It's probably ranked too high as it is, though.

It's certainly much too high if you tend more toward the GOLF DIGEST definition of greatness -- resistance to scoring, conditioning etc.  In fact I've always wondered how in the world they had the course ranked at all based on that definition.  But, that's not my definition of what a great golf course is.

Certainly part of the appeal of Maidstone is the setting, and part to me has always been the simplicity of it ... the simple construction, the lack of fairway irrigation, the different grasses and different lies that make it testing.  It's a perfect, though different, "maintenance meld."  If they're really about to put in fairway irrigation, I might wind up liking it less as a result.

It also has a handful of truly great golf holes which even a player like RMD must respect, although I'd be the first to agree that it doesn't have 18 of them.

What it is, is different, at least compared to other courses in America.  When you start comparing it to real links courses from around the world, it is likely to slip a ways, while a course like Somerset Hills goes in the opposite direction.

Vive la difference!

[blasbe1]

Grandwazo:

Your point about the closeness of powerboats is an issue on the 13th hole, the one next to the tee is bigger than the guys house (very gusty move btw, bringing a boat home to the Mrs.that's bigger than her house).  

I'm glad to elicit criticism but here's the thing . . . your absolutely wrong about the "forced" issue . . . at least from a design perspective b/c Emmit routed and built the course when those houses were not there, my understanding is that Harbor Road wasn't there . . . it was 1927 and from the 16th hole you would have seen dunes and Reynolds Channel.  

The worst water holes you've ever seen, wow!  Sorry.  You're also dead wrong about what kind of shots you have to play at SW, both the aerial and ground game are very important and the ground game is always on our mind during the project . . . that's why we've got collection areas behind 10, in front of 14 and behind 15.  Take 18 for instance, we keep the false front tight so putting is an option.  For a forward pin I almost always putt up that slope.  

Nobody at Seawane thinks we've got a classic links course on our hands (classic in the Scot/Ire/Hamptons Classic sense).    We do think we've got a sporty course that tests the best amateurs in the local area who come back year after year and enjoy it.  Something to be said for that.  

I'll say it again . . . a little louder this time for you . . . I don't understand the pettiness that I observe between the clubs we play with/against in these interclub matches (you know the list . . . Cold Spring, Pine Hollow, Engineers, Muttontown, Seawane, Woodmere, Inwood)  and I can't help but think you sound exactly like what I hear from our own members and those from other clubs.  This aint a competition . . . especially the renovation project as SW . . . it's about the golf and about the course.  Sorry you don't care for SW but based upon your criticism and evident lack of understanding of playing links golf (wind, ground and aerial game) I won't loose any sleep.          

 

[HamiltonBHearst]

Blaseb1-Keep up the efforts in returning your club to the more classic work.  It is a shame that the interclub matches that you speak of do not help architecture but rather hurt it through the petty competiveness.

[ChipOat]

Sandman; HBHearst et al:

Stehpen Kay did work at RHC on #'s 3,4,5,8,17,& 18 plus the new range.

Some think the results have been positive and others do not.

HBHearst:

You don't include #5 at RHC as a "good hole"??  A SUPERB hole IMO!  Almost the same challenge as #17 at TPC Sawgrass except it has a road around it instead of H2O.  Definitely one of the 2-3 toughest holes to make par on the course. Doubles, etc. are plentiful.

Also, you do include #6 as a "good hole".  I'm afraid I can't agree.  It's just too easy with only the mound in the front part of the green keeping it from being a total snooze.  The club has done a fine job of fixing the problem with standing water and salt water burnout but the architectural merits of the hole are still only a gleam in somebody's eye.

[blasbe1]

I have only played RHC once but it looked like the mounding on the left of 13 was relatively new (I played last year).  I think it's a great links course (unless bulkheading prevents one from being a links course, Gw?).  Some have criticized it for goose droppings and wetness . . . it's the South Shore baby and the water table is less than a long putter below the turf in most places.  The greens there are fantastic and you need to be very creative.  I hope to play it some more next season but I got the sense that the course has not changed too much over time.  

I could be wrong about that though . . . anyone know the extent of the work done over time?    

[HamiltonBHearst]

Chipoat-I am not a big fan of number #5 as I do not particularly care for hitting over the previous green nor the cramped nature of the hole.

#6 I always remember playing fast near the green where it is exposed to the wind with the neat hump in the green.  It is reachable in two downwind though ball can easily roll through.  On a layup second, must play to left flirting with hazard or leave a pitch over bunker to firm green.  Also getting to left on second is difficult if your first ball is to middle-left of fairway.  The right rough was always flooded which was a hazard in itself.

Now the afternoons at Lawrence Beach Club are without critics.

[grandwazo]

I give.  blasbe1, I look forward to returning to Seawane in the future and promise to have a more open perspective.  I apologize for my criticism and applaud your efforts to bring Seawane back to it's original character.  Good luck in acheiving that goal.  I spoke with my playing partner from our match the last time we played SW and he reminded me that the greens were excellent the day we played, and that we didn't complain too much after winning our match.  I also have to say that I love the ground game, and playing Ireland this year two weeks before our club championship helped to get me back to the finals, so if your intent is to get the course playing hard and fast allowing for bump and run shots from from the fairway, more power to you.
As far as interclubs go, there are different groups of clubs that play each other based on status and unfortunately to some degree religion.  Our respective clubs fall into one of the lower categories and the complaints we both hear have to do with the simple fact that our courses don't really measure up to the better tracks in our area we get to play as well.  
Again, I apologize for disrepecting your course and your club.
Regards
GrandWazoo

[Matt_Ward]

I enjoyed reading Tom Doak's post on Maidstone. I've always believed the course was too highly rated -- to be in the top in the USA is way toooooo much of a stretch in my mind.

I can appreciate Dennis H and his comments -- but there's not a cold day in hell of a chance for Maidstone to be even remotely ahead of NGLA and certainly SH with all due respect.

Getting back to TD's comments I believe Maidstone does possess several key holes that clearly are the cats meow. The 9th is simply delicious and may be one of the finest mid-length par-4's in the USA. However, the rest of Maidtsone depends upon the wind to add "juice" to the layout. I don't doubt that when you compare other 6,400-yards courses the likes of Maidstone will stand quite well. But, when you throw in other courses of varying distances and demands against Maidstone it reminds me of the bantanweight fighter moving up in class against a supreme middleweight or heavyweight. The net result is clearly one-sided.

I don't doubt Maidstone has it's moments but when you see a course placed at the level of a top 50 or top 100 it needs to be much more than a brief glimpse at greatness IMHO.

blaseb1:

I used to play in the Richardson years ago and always enjoyed the winding roads that take you back to Seawane -- you could make serious $$ in seeing if someone unfamiliar with the area can find the course in their first attempt.

I'd be very interested in returning and seeing how the "new' changes put forward by Kay. Just for curiosity -- was anything done to the par-4 16th -- I believe it's the hole where water crosses near the front of the green?

I've alsobeen told the dimensions and amount of bunkers were also effected. Can you provide any details? Thanks ...

P.S. For what it's worth -- the final five at Southward Ho makes for an interesting conclusion to the round. I would dare say the par-3 14th is one of the least known and undervalued par-3's on the Island.

[ChipOat]

HBHearst:

While your objections to #5 at RHC are shared by most, for pure shot value, that hole is hard to beat.  It's absolutely a better hole than #8 at Maidstone, to circle back to this thread's original topic.

I appreciate your observations regarding the strategic merits of #6 at Rockaway.  However, 1) the shape of the green doesn't really favor a pitch from the left side and the bunker is pretty benign, 2) current-day wedges and balls have now made the pitch from the right a relative non-event and 3) the green is relatively unreachable into the prevailing wind anyway so the bail-out drive to the left doesn't usually cost much.  Now downwind - you're points are spot on but that's less than 1/4 of the time.

[blasbe1]

Grandwazo:

Again, no disrespect taken . . . thank you for giving it some additional thought . . . as did I . . . especially your thoughts re:  proximity of tees to greens.  The two main instances are the 2green/3rd tee and 3rdgreen/4th tee.  In fact from the back tee on 4 you actually carry part of the green side bunker on three.  So I went down to the club this morning and looked.  I immediately realized that it's much more of a saftey issue from the forward tees than from the back tees b/c to carry the ball from either hole to the back tee of the other would require some mis-clubing and or a sculled shot.  The safety concern is totally legit., however, I was also reminded of how it is rather unique and actually the flow from green to tee box is natural and purposeful (when walking, forget carts).  There is a sense of continuity to the 2ndgreen/3rd tee and 3rdgreen/4th tee as if you're playing a connected series of holes rather than seperate holes.  In fact, the first 5 holes have an independent and connected character, after 5 green you cross the road.

Not at all to compare SW with the Old Course but here is what Paul Daley, in Golf Architecture A Worldwide Perspective says about the Old Courses' famously close tees and greens (in context Daley is discussing its routing in general and the ability to play the course clockwise and counterclockwise) "Furthermore, the treeless landscape, combined with the close proximity of greens and tees, allows the golf course to be seen as one core entity rather than eighteen seperate compartments.  This aspect is often missing on modern courses . . . ."  

Emmit was no slouch (begging for a CaddyShack reference) so I have to think that those two green/tee complexes were designed with purpose and perhaps something older in mind.  

And stop dispariging your home course . . . you've evidently a FreshMeadowphile.  It's a fine course but there other great ones out there . . . actually for a parkland tract I much prefer Cold Spring (its serious sleeper).  

Cheers.