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.


Mike_Cirba

Re: Plainfield Restoration Update
« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2008, 12:08:25 AM »
James Bennett,

You rock.

Awesome map!   What year is that from?


James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Plainfield Restoration Update
« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2008, 01:44:03 AM »
Mike Cirba

I don't know what year the map was from.  I presume it is from the time period when Plainfield was first built by Ross.  The maps hang in the clubhouse foyer.


Matt Ward and Patrick Mucci

Every course has a 'least best' hole.  IMO, that is #18.  Others might suggest #13 or #14 but I wouldn't.  Given the improvements that Gil Hanse has been able to achieve, it is reasonable to expect that there may be some changes proposed to 18.  It is a difficult piece of land, and it will always be a shorter par 4.  But as I haven't seen Gil's Master Plan, I don't know if anything is proposed for #18 or not.

By the way, what do you think Plainfield's least best hole is?

James B

ps  Happy Thanksgiving to all my American friends, including those 'big guys' who just look-in these days and haven't posted for some time.
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Plainfield Restoration Update
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2008, 11:10:22 AM »
Thanks for the update and pix. Plainfield is one of my favorite courses to recommend to anyone traveling to the metro area that wants to see a fantastic example of Ross. It is one of only two private courses that I have been to that I would consider joining for a place for my family to play golf (if I had the means that is).
« Last Edit: November 30, 2008, 11:12:10 AM by ed_getka »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Plainfield Restoration Update
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2008, 11:36:53 AM »
James Bennett,

It's more than just a "difficult piece of land".

There's the element of unchangeable confinement.
You have a public road bordering the area from the tee to the DZ.
You have OB, including structures, long of the DZ.

The hole is squeezed between these boundaries.

The only available land is beyond the green, and, into the practice area.

It's not an easy hole by any definition.

The problem as I see it is the awkwardness of the tee shot.

It seems and feels contrived.

In light of increased distance, I'd look at a topo and see if I couldn't replace the left side trees with severe bunkering and place the green 30 to 40 to 50 yards back of it's current location, making it a less severe dogleg where risk/reward off the tee have a better look and feel.

My "Google Earth" is not operating currently, so I can't reference the features and the spacial relationships, but, straightening out the dogleg and moving the green back seems to be the most viable alternative ..... space permitting.

Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Plainfield Restoration Update
« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2008, 05:41:43 PM »
I was looking at the routing plan posted by [edit: James Bennett  not Mike Cirba.] The bunkering looks quite different than what was built recently.

Is this more a renovation than a restoration?
« Last Edit: November 30, 2008, 07:01:02 PM by Mike McGuire »

James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Plainfield Restoration Update
« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2008, 06:18:00 PM »
Patrick

I agree with your last post - the 18th is  a difficult piece of land.  I only saw it briefly, and I was mentally tired having enjoyed what was such an exhilarating delight that day.  So, my memory may be lacking.

The characteristics that I was disappointed in, that seemed to be 'un-Plainfield' to me, were the pond on the corner, the heavy trees on the inside of the dogleg and the severity of the dogleg.  I suspect a 'better' hole will be a shorter hole than the current one.

You mention the tight land issues and the road.  Well, isn't #17 an absolute peach given those issues.

I am interested to hear whether there are any plans to 'restore' #18.  It might be that  pond removal and tree thinning will improve the hole.  However, I am glad that wiser minds than mine are doing it.

Here is an old Google overhead, where the 18th can be seen.



James B (occasionally mistaken for Mike Cirba)
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Plainfield Restoration Update
« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2008, 06:43:49 PM »
James Bennett,

Thanks for the aerial.

I don't think the pond is a substantive factor in the play of the hole.

As you can see from the aerial, there's plenty of room behind the green.

Straightening the hole and placing the green further back might be a viable alternative.

The dogleg on # 17 isn't as severe.
However, I objected to the narrowness of a blind, doglegged fairway.
Whomever narrowed the fairway in the DZ erred.
With proper width restored, # 17 is a terrific hole.
In its narrowed state its excessively penal.
 

Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Plainfield Restoration Update
« Reply #32 on: November 30, 2008, 07:02:47 PM »

Apologies to James Bennett who posted the early routing map. I edited my post.

My question remains - Is this a restoration or a renovation?

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Plainfield Restoration Update
« Reply #33 on: November 30, 2008, 10:07:27 PM »
Plainfield is one of my favorite places.  If it is possible for a top 100 course to be significantly underrated, then PCC fits the bill.  Interesting, fun, varied and challenging.  Great bunkering and an even better set of greens.  What's not to love?  I look forward to each return visit because the restoration efforts just seem to get better and better.  As for #18, while I agree the tee shot is awkward, finding the fairway leaves one of the best approaches on the course to a devilish green.



Comparisons to Baltusrol are no contest.  Plainfield is superior to both courses by a wide margin in my eyes. 

Ed

Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Plainfield Restoration Update
« Reply #34 on: November 30, 2008, 10:19:31 PM »
Plainfield is one of my favorite places.  If it is possible for a top 100 course to be significantly underrated, then PCC fits the bill.  Interesting, fun, varied and challenging.  Great bunkering and an even better set of greens.  What's not to love?  I look forward to each return visit because the restoration efforts just seem to get better and better.  As for #18, while I agree the tee shot is awkward, finding the fairway leaves one of the best approaches on the course to a devilish green.



Comparisons to Baltusrol are no contest.  Plainfield is superior to both courses by a wide margin in my eyes. 

Ed


#18 from the original routing - looks a bit different.



Matt_Ward

Re: Plainfield Restoration Update
« Reply #35 on: November 30, 2008, 10:51:49 PM »
Gents:

For those who have rightly talked about the greatness of Plainfield -- I would dare say there is a trio of other NJ courses that get little attention and each has made significant efforts to bolster what was present originally.

I'd highly recommend visits to any of the following three ...

Essex County CC / West Orange -- great update fr Hanse & Bahto
Forsgate CC (Banks Course) / Monroe Twsp. -- hats off to RDM Management and Stephen Kay for their efforts there
Montclair GC (#2 & #4 Nines) / West Orange -- could be the most demanding under 6,600 yards / par-70 course in NJ.

Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Plainfield Restoration Update
« Reply #36 on: December 01, 2008, 08:21:14 AM »

Looks like the present 12th plays to the original 13 green. Must be new holes in the right half of this picture.



Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch