[mike_malone]

Hollywood is 50 in Golfweek Classic rankings. That seems reasonable to me. Rolling Green is 120+. That seems insane to me. I want to list some factors I think should be considered when determining the greatness of a course.


 Challenging approaches
   Flynn loves to angle his green side bunkers. RG also has many uphill approaches. Some don’t like that but it sure is more challenging than flat approaches with openings in front. The green side bunkers are usually parallel at Hollywood but some are fronting which promotes just carrying them rather than taking them on. Hollywood is heavily bunkered and quite attractive but playability is more important to me.


Variety of look and play
   Few courses are as heavily bunkered as Hollywood and there is a great variety of placement and clustering. The course is fairly flat so the bunkers account for much of the variety. The green undulations are also varied so that creates many different playing options on the greens.
 RG has its hills but the variety of approach is significant without much blindness. The elevation changes and undulating fairways are visually appealing but more importantly provide many varied plays.


Green undulations versus slope
  Travis is known for his many up and downs of putting surfaces. RG has more slope. Many love those undulations but I feel slope is more subtle and provides more places to put pins.


Bunkers—many versus few, parallel versus angled


 Hollywood may be the most attractively bunkered course inland in the Mid Atlantic area. Most at the green are parallel with a few fronting. I found the left green side bunker on 12 to be outstanding because the putting surface sloped into it. The Flynn green side bunkers at RG are very deep on the low side and often create an angled green. So you take on these bunkers not avoid them. My view of parallel bunkers is that they grab mishits but aren’t strategic. Fronting bunkers are just to be avoided.


Natural looking versus manufactured
 Hollywood is highly manufactured while Flynn was called The Nature Faker who said it should be natural or look natural. This is why I think that Travis is liked so much. He does a lot. Flynn’s subtlety is missed by many but the playability is outstanding. Flynn at RG is economical with the features thinking that the land is the best hazard. Hollywood has flattish land but much that appeals to the eye.


Awe, sense of place, unique
 Each has all three in their own way.


I enjoy Hollywood immensely but love RG.  That’s what we hear when out of towners come to play the top Philly courses and add us to fill out their schedule.


When I look at Golfweek’s Classic list I see an under appreciation for Flynn in the rankings of Philly CC, Huntingdon Valley, Lehigh, and Manufacturers as well.


Hollywood deserves its ranking for sure but I think subtlety is under appreciated.






 

[Nigel Islam]

I think its might be as simple as the courses between 30-125 on that list being pretty close together in quality? Most of those courses are very, very good golf courses. 

[mike_malone]

I think its might be as simple as the courses between 30-125 on that list being pretty close together in quality? Most of those courses are very, very good golf courses.

1 point difference is a lot in these rankings. I think that’s the difference between a perceived great course versus a very good one.

[John Kavanaugh]

Rolling Green doesn’t sit well with first time visitors. It has a reputation as a homers course.

[mike_malone]

Rolling Green doesn’t sit well with first time visitors. It has a reputation as a homers course.

Funny I find first time visitors to be quite impressed. My point is that Hollywood has great looks and is very enjoyable but not as challenging as the Philly Flynns I play. RG just happens to be the one I know best.


I do believe that the average rater prefers the looks to the subtleties.

[John Kavanaugh]

If it’s any consolation from someone who has played neither. Hollywood is known for its photos, Rolling Green is famous for its membership.

[mike_malone]

If it’s any consolation from someone who has played neither. Hollywood is known for its photos, Rolling Green is famous for its membership.

I think that the members that I have met at Hollywood love the architecture of their course the same way that our members appreciate our architecture. That’s my focus.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mayday,


Check out the web site for each club and tell me that architecture means the same to both memberships. The language on your site must scare the hell out of most GolfWeek raters.


It looks like Hollywood has removed some of their more obtuse images. You guys aren’t fighting the same fight.

[mike_malone]

 I have no idea what this means.

[John Kavanaugh]

Hollywood mentions the enjoyment of children on their home page. You guys warn of impending doom, with the photos to prove it.

[mike_malone]

Hollywood mentions the enjoyment of children on their home page. You guys warn of impending doom, with the photos to prove it.

It takes a lot to lose a golf ball there so it’s hardly impending doom. Come and play it!!

[John Kavanaugh]

It’s hard to lose a ball that comes back to your feet.

[Mike Hendren]

My experience with both architects is limited but Flynn’s work “ain’t no party, ain’t no disco, ain’t no fooling around.”  Travis’ is “a disco inferno.” 


It’s possible the Golfweek panel, with more varied/higher handicaps is a sucker for quirk and aesthetics.  I am.

[Rory Connaughton]

Travis beats Flynn in the sex appeal contest, Mike. The Heinz 57 hole at Hollywood appeals immediately whereas a rater may completely miss a reverse canted fairway to a green that only holds the opposite shot shape (pick any Flynn). First of all, the rater needs to be accurate enough and long enough to even perceive the features of the hole. If they are all over the place off the tee, they'll never perceive the excellence. They'll also make double and wonder how.


This isn't just because Travis "shows his work". Flynn clubs that should/could receive greater praise hide their topography with excess tree coverage and monochromatic grassing. Showcasing the topography only serves to better showcase the architecture. Shinnecock is the best evidence but with at least some Philly Flynn's there have been big steps forward under one regime only to reverse course under the next.

[Ian Andrew]

I think it was Mike Clayton who said unpredictable design equals better golf. If I were to take it down to the simplest terms, Hollywood is full of architectural surprises. That is far more engaging than having a clear understanding of what you need to do, where you need to be and what will be the result of coming up short. Rolling Green is as honest as they get. It spends a lot of time exposing your shortcomings. Hollywood does too, but it's deceptive, you feel a little more entertained a long the way.

[Ed Brzezowski]

Rolling Green doesn’t sit well with first time visitors. It has a reputation as a homers course.

Kind of like my first kidney stone.

[mike_malone]

 I think Ian and Rory’s comments could be combined that Flynn’s use of the land is his unpredictability and his sex appeal as well.
 In our recent work we removed a fairway bunker on 7 which was added in the 00’s that created a predictable outcome but eliminated the original design idea that the roll on the hill would lead to many outcomes.


The difference between Travis and Flynn there is that it isn’t a visual thing but it’s all about playability.

[mike_malone]

As a mediocre golfer I find the approach to the green to be my chance to make a golf shot. This is where I think Flynn’s angling really shines versus either parallel hazards or fronting ones. When you play more challenging versus punishing approaches I think it is better golf and so a better golf course.

[Rick Sides]

I have been fortunate enough to play both courses. They are both wonderful walks in golf but I don't believe Hollywood should be ranked that much higher than Rolling.  Like someone alluded to earlier, I think Hollywood gets a lot of attention for its bunkering and unique holes, such as the Heinz 57 and short par 3 volcano bunkers.  Rolling in my book really should be considered top 100, especially with the work Gil is doing there and the uniqueness of property and quality of golf.

[tomgoutman]

Mayday:
Who cares about golf course rankings? They are meaningless. RG and Hollywood are great courses IMHO. But they are different. And your email captures well their differences. How many "highly rated" courses have you played and at the end of the round, you shrug your shoulders and say, "I don't get it"? Look at the Golf Digest rankings of Pennsylvania golf courses. A joke.

[mike_malone]

Tom,


 While ratings might not matter the rankings reveal the impact of visuals over the what really matters—- playing the course.

[Michael Moore]

"I can still recall the kind of sensation I had when I was in a small river, and I was searching with my hands beneath a rock, and something hit my finger, and I noticed it was a fish. That’s something that I just can’t express in words." - Shigeru Miyamoto
 
Mike, thank you responding positively when I invited myself to Rolling Green in 2007. It was an afternoon I won't forget so call me for some long overdue reciprocity.
 
Since then I have played more of the most highly-regarded courses in America. How many of them offer something truly different? How many of those courses by Tillinghast, Ross and Flynn were expertly routed into beautiful parks with the excellent playing characteristics you describe, resembling many other golf courses, and how many of them make it feel like a fish has bumped into you?
 
I study and practice design and we are constantly reminded to delight the user. Hollywood does this in spades. Three of the holes are modern art masterpieces and most of the others have green contours that delight the user, on the approach, the recovery, and the putt. Call it eye candy if you want, but I still got two eyes. When Travis is firing on all cylinders it's not a fair fight.

[mike_malone]

Michael,
  I recall that day as well.  You playing with your classic woods. The thing about a golf architecture discussion group is one needs to spark the conversation. So I say something that may get a response. Thanks for yours.
 

[JNagle]

Mike, Rory can relate to this as he was present on the same tour.  Knowing a thing or two about Flynn courses I see this as being a compliment rather than a negative slight.  Flynn takes time to learn.  Whereas other courses rated higher than some of Flynn's have an instant impact.  I know RG and find it to be a fascinating course.  But, it did take time to truly grasp the greatness of the course during my time consulting.  It took time to better understand the subtleties and complexities of the holes there with an emphasis on the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 17th and 18th holes.  They, like other Flynn's do not jump out at you.  A famous GD rater and writer once commented that the problem for many Flynn's is that the true nuances of a course cannot be found in a single tour.  It is learned over return visits and rounds of golf.  Something most raters rarely do.  I find that to be spot on and a compliment to the genius that is William Flynn.  RG is a great course but can also be lost in the greatness of many other Philly area gems.  Although the club has gone through some extensive tree removal, the actual land itself does not compare in grandeur to some of the other Philly Flynn's.  There is a brawniness and much greater expanse to the others.  RG, albeit a great course, does not have the topography of the others.  RG will always remain a favorite, but I can understand how it faces an uphill battle in the rankings. 

[mike_malone]

Jim,
 You did many good things to enhance the genius of Flynn at Rolling Green. We are grateful for that. Playing Flynn courses often is the best way to appreciate their greatness.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()