[Michael Chadwick]

With what metrics do you, whether you’re a rating panelist or not, organize your personal rankings? A thought exercise I enjoy, and a useful way for me to reflect on each hole after experiencing a new course, is to set a hole to hole match for the course against another one I’ve played that’s similarly rated. For Coore and Crenshaw’s Friar’s Head, I chose Bandon Trails, Pacific Dunes, and Ballyneal.   

Friar’s Head is a luxurious golf course. The club’s property and facility is spectacular, and an important distinction should be made on account of the integrity of its design. There is never a moment when the layout becomes gaudy (a topic being discussed on another thread), no features that smack of flashiness but conceal a gaping shallowness underneath. There are few better modern course experiences in the world. I’m very grateful to have had it, and in the wrong hands this location could’ve been transformed into a high dollar vapid mess. Thankfully, for appreciators architectural quality, it wasn’t. It is an extravagant modern club grounded by substance and strategy, and that combination on Long Island results in its high rankings and effusive praise.

Much of that praise is well earned, but I would respectfully argue that raters are being overly swept up by the lavished experience when considering the course’s architecture. 13th in Golf Magazine and 16th in Digest, ahead of places like Pacific Dunes, Riviera, and Prairie Dunes struck me as soon as I walked off 18 as inflated. Perhaps the locker room shower’s water pressure stuns raters into submission following the round? It damn near pinned me to the wall. But when I was walking along Friar’s playing corridors I was pleasantly surprised by how well Bandon Trails felt like it held up to it, built not long after FH and Old Sandwich. Both courses have superb par 5s, a memorable mix of par 4s, although I think Trails has the better set of par 3s. It served as a good reminder of how fine the hairs are split—or perhaps how exclusivity might earn extra bias compared to public/resort—on top 100 rankings.

For reference, here are the ranks:
Golf Magazine: Friar’s 13th, Pacific 19th, Ballyneal 34th, Trails 38
Golf Digest: Friar’s 16th, Pacific 18th, Ballyneal 44th, Trails 67th
Golfweek Modern 100: Pacific Dunes 2nd, Friar’s 3rd, Ballyneal 4th, Trails 15th
Top100golfcourses.com: Friar’s 12th, Pacific 13th, Ballyneal 22nd, Trails 46th

Let’s get to the matches. Each winning hole is the one I find to be more architecturally compelling, from a composite of strategy, terrain, uniqueness, etc. Occasionally I thought it was appropriate to halve holes, but as infrequently as possible.

Friar’s vs. Bandon Trails
1 BT
2 FH
3 BT
4 BT
5 FH
6 FH
7 FH
8 FH
9 FH
10 FH
11 BT
12 BT
13 FH
14 Halved
15 BT
16 FH
17 Halved
18 Halved
Final: 9 Friar’s, 6 Trails, 3 halved. Friar’s wins.   

Friar’s vs. Pacific Dunes
1 PD
2 FH
3 PD
4 PD
5 FH
6 PD
7 FH
8 FH
9 PD
10 PD
11 PD
12 Halved
13 PD
14 FH
15 PD
16 Halved
17 PD
18 Halved
Final: 10 Pacific, 5 Friar’s, 3 halved. Pacific Dunes wins. 

Friars vs. Ballyneal
1 FH
2 Halved
3 B
4 B
5 FH
6 FH
7 Halved
8 B
9 FH
10 B
11 B
12 B
13 Halved
14 FH
15 FH
16 B
17 B
18 B
Final: 9 Ballyneal, 6 Friar’s, 3 halved. Ballyneal wins.

Accordingly, then, I place Friar’s Head behind Pacific Dunes and Ballyneal, conflicting with each publication. Does this mean I prefer more rough and tumble terrain, Doak greens, or that I have a mania for uneven fairway lies? Maybe. Or is my 18 hole match too imperfect because declaring a hole won or lost doesn’t adequately account for whether the winning hole is good, great, or world class? Pebble Beach, for instance, loses more matches in my head than it probably should, because no matter how mesmerizing 6, 8, 9 and 10 are, they can only be reflected as single hole victories.

I’m curious what you think both of my results and the way I try to reach said results. It’s an exercise in splitting hairs, yes, but personal rankings have value as they evoke one’s own golfing aesthetic and preference across the medley of styles, eras, and architects who’ve contributed to the game.   

[Sean_A]

I haven't played any of the courses mentioned. But from time to time I do head to head matches as a way to test the eye test. As one who doesn't subscribe to checklists of things to look for and rate each on a scale, I find the head to head with other courses I think are of similar quality helpful. However, at the end of the day it doesn't much matter. What really matters is if I want to spend the money and time to return.

Ciao

[Jeff Schley]

Michael,
Good analysis. I have played all the courses mentioned and certainly no duds in the group.  As ratings are subjective mine is no better than any others and certainly is not buying our own Confidential Guides to read our views.

Bandon Trails I think is unfairly rated due to the great courses at the resort. Had it been built first and been the only 1 for 10 years it would be viewed and rated higher IMO.  So I really think that factors in as you automatically think ok what is the rankings of the courses at the resort itself when you go. I put it at 3rd behind PD and BD, but challenging BD for 2nd. However it doesn't mean it isn't highly regarded.

Ballyneal is such a great use of the rolling sand hills in this remote area it is hard to think you could improve it much. You could create a dozen courses in the area probably if there was demand and I would think all solid "found" holes. I didn't think it was an easy walk however, nor was BT.


Friars Head is a wonderful course and land. Yes they have water boarding like showers and ornate lockers with an expensive clubhouse etc. However, I don't like to do the head to head as my test. Some holes are much better or worse than the other and yet are only ordinary 1 or 0 without the allowance for like a 1.5 for 10 at Riviera for example. The great holes matter more and should. You can't really have a great course without some great holes. Solid course yes, but not a great course. So great holes aren't weighted evenly in the hole by hole comparison .

Taken in totality I thought FH was ahead of Ballyneal and BT, but not by much. I have Ballyneal a solid second, but again we don't have to pick only 1 course to be the best. What do I know anyway, I'd gladly play any other them. I would hesitate to say FH is overrated however. The one thing I would say is BT is underrated.
EDIT:  I just viewed 15 at FH again and love that hole, the transition from 15 to 16 isn't architecture per say but great. Like Barnbougle!

[jeffwarne]

I have never been a fan of head to head matches for courses.
It can be like the high school coach who throws ou his number 5 against 1 and four against 2, in hopes of winning matches 3-5 with his best players against their bench.
Lost in a head to match of holes is the routing, the balance, the flow even the transitions between holes, to say nothing of the overall feel of the setting and place.


Kate Upton and Scarlett Johansson approach you and declare themselves yours for the day, together or separate.
You gonna play em or rate them?
Do you dare mentioning to a friend that either is over rated?


Of course, if I draw the comparison to Friar's with the female duo above, I'm definitely in for a hell of a night, given that I've played with several people who had career rounds at Friar's 

[Steve Lapper]

I have never been a fan of head to head matches for courses.
It can be like the high school coach who throws ou his number 5 against 1 and four against 2, in hopes of winning matches 3-5 with his best players against their bench.
Lost in a head to match of holes is the routing, the balance, the flow even the transitions between holes, to say nothing of the overall feel of the setting and place.


Kate Upton and Scarlett Johansson approach you and declare themselves yours for the day, together or separate.
You gonna play em or rate them?
Do you dare mentioning to a friend that either is over rated?


Of course, if I draw the comparison to Friar's with the female duo above, I'm definitely in for a hell of a night, given that I've played with several people who had career rounds at Friar's 

+1000!

[Jason Thurman]

Assorted thoughts:


Hole-by-hole match play can be a fun thought exercise. I personally find that people tend to "halve" holes too infrequently in that format. I also like boxing scoring because sometimes a course throws a real knockout hole in the mix, or conversely, a glass chin hole.


Pebble Beach might not be great at match play, but it's vintage Tyson in the ring.


At the end of the day though, all I really care about when ranking courses I've played is the answer to the question "Where would I most want to play tomorrow?" (all else being equal).


To that end, I think we spend way too much time wrapped up in trying to project some illusion of "which course is best?" to a point where we delegitimize our own preferences. There should be a LOT of room for people to rank four courses in all different orders when those four courses are all heralded enough to be rated by publications as Top 15 Modern.


I haven't played Friar's Head, but I go Bandon Trails > Pacific Dunes > Ballyneal, personally. Incidentally, they're 5, 6, and 7 on my personal list of favorite courses (Pebble is on top, Teeth of the Dog is 4th, and White Bear is 8th with Old Mac at 9).

[Kalen Braley]

Completely agree with where Jeff was going with his post.

You get to spend the equivalent of a weekend with 1/2 dozen or so stunning, gorgeous, and super hot women.

And then you gonna haggle over which one was best?  Cmon man, just enjoy the ride!

[Niall C]

Hole-by-hole match play can be a fun thought exercise. I personally find that people tend to "halve" holes too infrequently in that format. I also like boxing scoring because sometimes a course throws a real knockout hole in the mix, or conversely, a glass chin hole.

Pebble Beach might not be great at match play, but it's vintage Tyson in the ring.

Jason

You make a very good point but I'm not sure I'd pick PB for the Tyson comparison. Which holes do you think provide the knock-out punch ?

Niall

[SL_Solow]

I am a reformed rater.  I have always disliked the hole by hole because of the problems previously noted e.g. matches where the best hole sequences against lesser holes but also for two distinct additional reasons.  First, I tend to view a golf course as a totality or, to borrow the cliche, I subscribe to the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  Golf courses are best when they feel like they are seamless.  Ratings of individual holes miss that ingredient.  The second point is somewhat related.  That type of comparison overlooks one of the most, if not the most, important components of a golf course.  I am referring to its routing.  Clearly, all of the courses discussed in this thread are wonderful.  But consider the routings.  Friar's Head has 2 distinct areas; the portion in the dunes close to the water and the flat former potato fields.  A pedestrian routing could have created separate nines and left us with a disjointed golf course.  But C&C found a way to weave in and out of the disparate areas through the use of par 5's as connectors (compare the disparity of the two nines at Portstewart as an example).  They built outstanding holes in both areas but it is the routing that makes for a better walk and a more interesting course.  That is why, in my opinion, it ranks among the best courses.  Incidentally, despite my Chicago location, I played it several times when the "clubhouse " was the old barn and the showers were a future dream.


Tom Doak's willingness to defy convention in the sequencing of the holes at Pacific Dunes is another example of an outstanding routing leading to a better course.  Four par 3's (including back to back) and three par 5"s in one 9?  Yet it works beautifully.


Bandon Trails is routed through what seems to be three separate ecosystems yet the holes flow.  For me, routing is a critical component of what makes a golf course work and the hole by hole match method ignores it.  Perhaps that is why Friars Head is not rated as highly by some who utilize that method.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Fun stuff Michael
For you, why does Pacific win holes 10 & 15 over Friar's?
Peace

[Michael Chadwick]

Fun stuff Michael
For you, why does Pacific win holes 10 & 15 over Friar's?
Peace

Hi Mike, in both examples it comes down to the greens. 10 at FH is wonderful, and highly original, with the large mound blinding what I believe is the 2nd largest green pad on Long Island, next to the Creek's biarritz. 10 at PD, however, benefits from the upper and lower teeing areas, which changes the visual of the hole and tee shot dramatically. Then, given incidence of wind, it's often wise to flight a ball low or even approach short and run it in, but PD's smaller mound on the front left either helps or shunts the ball away from the center of the green. Whereas the mound at FH is a clearing hurdle, the smaller one at PD is more in play, and helps make for a more exacting hole for me.


FH 15 is likely the most photographed on course, with the view of the Sound beyond, and how the entire hole draws down from both sides like a halfpipe. It's a very solid hole, but I think the approach and green complex of PD 15 is stellar. That final fairway bunker gives way to wonderful contour, and any right miss on a somewhat reverse redan green shape leads to a difficult, sunken recovery shot on tightly mown grass. The hole has a gentle beginning but gets increasingly difficult to score the closer you get to the cup.

[John Kavanaugh]

Please do a Ballyneal vs Pacific Dunes. I already know the results but want to see it in writing.


Btw: I find your methods to be pure genius.

[Jim Hoak]

Michael--A thought-provoking and excellent analysis.
I have seen in past analyses the hole-by-hole method of judging the relative merit of a course, and I have been somewhat critical of that method.  When I judge a course, I look for flow of the entire course, stretches of brilliance, joy and fun in playing the entire course, and the absence of very poor holes. 
I love Friar's Head, mostly for the last few holes--I think that #14-18 are as a good a stretch of holes as I know--and one of the best examples of recent architectural brilliance I have seen.  Some of the earlier "potato patch" holes may be less good, but they hold up well. 
Looking hole by hole, the course may lose to the other good courses you have used.  But is it right to only give each hole one "vote" and ignore the relevant merits of the holes?  And should it matter where in a course a hole occurs?  In my opinion the brilliance of #14-18 carries the day for the course as a whole.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Overrated?!? Blasphemy!


I refrain from an opinion....


For the last 15+ years-

Friar's Head....The 21st Century's Cypress Point

[Michael Chadwick]

Good points have been made about how routing isn't adequately considered in a hole to hole match. I agree. But it has been baked in to the published rankings for the courses, and why I set matches to courses that share comparable rank. We're talking about excellent places. My usage of overrated applies to the thinnest of margins, that FH to me might be ranked 5-10 spots higher than what I think appropriate. But instead of just "enjoying the ride" and not considering finer details, I'd prefer to drill down on the nuances of what distinguishes one great course to the next for me. Being discouraged from doing so on an architectural forum is ironic.

Jeff Warne: I would concede to your point were it a best of 5 series, but 18 holes seems more exhaustive and representative. Your analogy implies that it's a mistake for Ryder Cups to spend Sunday with a full slate of singles matches to determine the better team.

John Kavanaugh: Ballyneal v Pacific Dunes
1 PD
2 Halved
3 PD
4 B
5 Halved
6 PD
7 B
8 B
9 PD
10 B
11 PD
12 B
13 PD
14 B
15 PD
16 Halved
17 B
18 PD
8 Pacific Dunes, 7 Ballyneal, 3 halved. Pacific Dunes wins.

[Gib_Papazian]

I played it years ago - Tommy set me up with Dad for a round.


We started (I think) on #7 as the clubhouse had not been built yet.


Oddly - and remember, we live outside San Francisco - Dad wanted to join the club THAT DAY, just based on how much he loved the golf course.


Mom talked him out of it - and I was not going to lobby hard for a 350K expenditure, 2500 miles from home - but if I had the jing and lived in the MET Area, sign me up.


Goodale - not known for hyperventilating hyperbole - called me the evening after they played and exclaimed that Friar's Head had more interesting putting surfaces and green complexes than NGLA.










 

[John Kavanaugh]

Good points have been made about how routing isn't adequately considered in a hole to hole match. I agree. But it has been baked in to the published rankings for the courses, and why I set matches to courses that share comparable rank. We're talking about excellent places. My usage of overrated applies to the thinnest of margins, that FH to me might be ranked 5-10 spots higher than what I think appropriate. But instead of just "enjoying the ride" and not considering finer details, I'd prefer to drill down on the nuances of what distinguishes one great course to the next for me. Being discouraged from doing so on an architectural forum is ironic.

Jeff Warne: I would concede to your point were it a best of 5 series, but 18 holes seems more exhaustive and representative. Your analogy implies that it's a mistake for Ryder Cups to spend Sunday with a full slate of singles matches to determine the better team.

John Kavanaugh: Ballyneal v Pacific Dunes
1 PD
2 Halved
3 PD
4 B
5 Halved
6 PD
7 B
8 B
9 PD
10 B
11 PD
12 B
13 PD
14 B
15 PD
16 Halved
17 B
18 PD
8 Pacific Dunes, 7 Ballyneal, 3 halved. Pacific Dunes wins.

Exhilarating!!! Thanks.

[corey miller]

I tend to agree with Michael, relative to Pacific Dunes and to Ballyneal and a host of classic courses I also find Friar's Head "over-rated". 
[size=78%] [/size]
Since some non-golf elements seem to get incessantly raised I will quickly ask....Was the course better before or after the clubhouse? 

[John Kavanaugh]

I always thought that Tommy did a great job making sure all the “right” people saw Friar’s Head in the very early days. The most important rating of a course is that precious first one.

[Peter Pallotta]

"The most important rating of all is that first one."

The entire history of golf course architecture, in a nutshell. Thank you.

[Jason Thurman]

Hole-by-hole match play can be a fun thought exercise. I personally find that people tend to "halve" holes too infrequently in that format. I also like boxing scoring because sometimes a course throws a real knockout hole in the mix, or conversely, a glass chin hole.

Pebble Beach might not be great at match play, but it's vintage Tyson in the ring.

Jason

You make a very good point but I'm not sure I'd pick PB for the Tyson comparison. Which holes do you think provide the knock-out punch ?

Niall

[Jim Hoak]

Michael, please do not interpret these responses as opposing your analysis of the architectural merits of the courses.  I don't know how much time you have spent on GCA, but these responses have been light and respectful.
I do believe--maybe in a separate thread--that a discussion of the hole-by-hole method of judging courses should be discussed.  Personally, I'm not a fan--but I do enjoy the discussion that results.

[John Kavanaugh]

It’s not really hole by hole when you know the winner before you start.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Michael
Thank you for your detailed response
I think we would enjoy playing a round together, especially on a course with a lot of details.


10 & 15 at Friar's, to me, are outlandishly beautiful, interesting, and unique from a macro perspective - which outweigh the details you described at Pacific, for me.


I use the scorecard matchup sometimes, but mostly when courses are otherwise tied.


Peace

[John Kavanaugh]

Did Muccii ever join FH? Before construction of the beautiful clubhouse he told me the course wasn’t worth the drive. “Not worth the drive” is the working mans meh.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()