A well written Master Plan by Hanse for Rolling Green(1998) Updated by Forse

[mike_malone]

In the mid-90's Gil Hanse wrote a Master Plan for Rolling Green.I have read it many times and brought it to every green cmte. meeting as a reference.Recently i have begun to accumulate info to write a "Tree Management Program" treatise for my club.The writing in the master plan by Hanse says it all--about agronomic issues,safety issues,and strategic issues.Of course i do not agree with everything in the plan----that is what makes it good.It is not written in a politically correct way so as not to offend anyone.If i agreed with everything it would be watered down.

   What amazes me about the plan is that Hanse was only at our place for a limited time compared with someone like myself who is there all the time and thinks about it continuosly.Is this evidence of the professionalism of architects?(i would be remiss to neglect the contributions of members on the cmte. that gave him input)

    There is much that we did with the plan but much remains.It provides a powerful argument for change.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mayday,

Out of curiosity, why, if the master plan provides a powerful argument for change, ten years later, does a good deal remain to be done in the master plan ?

It would seem that the membership has cast it adrift.

And, what areas remain to be done ?

Perhaps, the master plan needs to be re-ratified, or have Gil come back in and update it.

Many times, successive administrations don't have the same enthusiasm as the administration responsible for the master plan, and the process of re-inforcement or re-validation needs to be undertaken by the present and future administrations.

Good Luck.

[mike_malone]

Pat
    First of all i believe there was no timeline in the original plan,so the enthusiasm waned after some initial major projects such as bunker work.
   You also   are correct that changes in leadership move the focus to different issues.
  Also,much of what is left to do relates to that damn tree issue.This seems to be a hot potato that people do not want to hold.
    I had not thought about bringing him back to update it but that makes sense,except i believe the majority will not think there is enough to do to warrant an update.
    

   I wanted to get some appreciation out there for the capability of these archies.This plan is tangible evidence to me that they are highly skilled.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mayday,

Agreed,

That's why we seek the advice of specialists, professionals in their respective fields for almost everything in our lives.

It may be that the process for bringing Gil back will rekindle the interest in continuing with the execution of your master plan.

Trees are always a contentious issue, but, the momentum for tree removal programs is substantial in the golf world today, and perhaps a refresher course to your members, from an outside professional, will go a long way.

Good Luck

[Dan Herrmann]

Mayday,
How are things going at RG these days?

RG is such a good golf course, and I'm thrilled to see tree removal and drastic improvement in the health of the greens.

[Bob Harris]

I'll be there this Thursday doing the course rating.  RG has always been one of my favorites, very interested in seeing the changes.

[mike_malone]

 Dan,

    Contact me and you can see for yourself.

   Last year we had an updated master plan done by Forse Design which built on Hanse's plan and referenced Flynn's design and the original construction as evidenced in photos.


    We then implemented the plan over the offseason. My assessment was 98% brilliant; 2% done by an alien.

[James Bennett]

    We then implemented the plan over the offseason. My assessment was 98% brilliant; 2% done by an alien.

Mayday

good to see you got your hands dirty, on 2% of the work! 

James B

[Kyle Harris]

Dan,

    Contact me and you can see for yourself.

   Last year we had an updated master plan done by Forse Design which built on Hanse's plan and referenced Flynn's design and the original construction as evidenced in photos.


    We then implemented the plan over the offseason. My assessment was 98% brilliant; 2% done by an alien.

2% or 2 Bunkers?

[mike_malone]

  Kyle,

    Believe it or not I'm flexible. It is 3 bunkers (2 on #7 and 1 on#18)
that were added which were placed right where the average golfer SHOULD hit the ball and one bunker which just keeps balls from bounding away from the line of play (#17) . If the bunkers on #7 were just moved to the right some 15 yards they no longer would be  offending and would indeed be in the area of the removed trees. The sales pitch was that the bunkers would "replace" the trees. If trees were planted where those new bunkers are people would be going crazy.

       Without these 4 bunkers you get 100% restoration!

    I just happen to be a person with high standards.


    But, I do believe the work done last offseason was overwhelmingly fantastic because it adheres to the original design.


    There is still more to do and some tweaking will be needed to the work done since any massive effort creates minor issues.

[mike_malone]

 It is my view that the rationale for adding these bunkers and moving the championship tees forward on #18 comes from a school of architectural thinking that differs from my judgement of Flynn. It seems to be the urge to make these holes "harder to par". This is not something that I feel merits changing a brilliantly designed course.


    This is the crux of my criticism. If this mindset becomes dominant we are likely to launch into all kinds of changes and will use those diversions from Flynn's plans as rationale for future changes.



     I wonder how many classic clubs could get 100% back to their original design as it relates to FEATURES?  I define "features" as tees, fairways, trees, bunkers, and artificial mounding.

[PThomas]

i loved RG A LOT during my one visit...i gotta get back there to see what's been done

good luck Mayday!

[mike_malone]

 Paul,

   The parkland nature of the course has been signifcantly enhanced by a more proper role for the trees. I believe Flynn said trees should separate holes, provide a back drop and shade on a hot day. At RG clumps of trees are used to create doglegs. This seems to me to be  the absolute best use for them; to create a risk/reward . We have lessened the evergreens used to "toughen" holes to a bare minimum.


   The amount of sand was estimated to have increased by 40%. That sounds a bit exaggerated to me. But, certainly, it is more dramatic now. We recovered the original design's intent that the greenside bunkers on #1--3--5--and 10 be one rather than 2. The visual impact is outstanding and the playability is affected significantly.

     I would say the course now allows more freedom off of the tee and more demands around the greens. It is my opinion that that is what Flynn intended for this site.

[Bob Harris]

  Kyle,

    Believe it or not I'm flexible. It is 3 bunkers (2 on #7 and 1 on#18)
that were added which were placed right where the average golfer SHOULD hit the ball and one bunker which just keeps balls from bounding away from the line of play (#17) . If the bunkers on #7 were just moved to the right some 15 yards they no longer would be  offending and would indeed be in the area of the removed trees. The sales pitch was that the bunkers would "replace" the trees. If trees were planted where those new bunkers are people would be going crazy.

       Without these 4 bunkers you get 100% restoration!

    I just happen to be a person with high standards.


    But, I do believe the work done last offseason was overwhelmingly fantastic because it adheres to the original design.


    There is still more to do and some tweaking will be needed to the work done since any massive effort creates minor issues.

Just got back from rating and playing RG.  I agree, the course looks great and plays even better. 
I also agree, I didn't like moving the tee up on 18.  It just looks strange having the championship tee in front of the blue tee.
The greens were stimping at 11.  I understand from the super that they were close to 13 yesterday for a club event.

[mike_malone]

 Bob,

    That was the annual Irish/Italian Day. We got skunked again. But I have a strategy to turn that around for next year!

[mike_malone]

 It totally baffles me why one would make the hole easier for the best players.

[Bob Harris]

It totally baffles me why one would make the hole easier for the best players.

I guess the thinking is that a 491 yard par 4 is more difficult than a 529 yard par 5.  Using the same logic, why not move the blue tee on 10 back to 270 and call it a par 4.

[mike_malone]

 Bob,

    That would make those who want to keep the par of the course above 70 happy. Because ,of course, a par below 70 means the course is subpar

 

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Bob,

    That was the annual Irish/Italian Day. We got skunked again. But I have a strategy to turn that around for next year!

Are you on the Irish side or Italian side?

[Scott Stambaugh]

Dan,

    
   Last year we had an updated master plan done by Forse Design which built on Hanse's plan and referenced Flynn's design and the original construction as evidenced in photos.

Mike-

Someone asked a similar question a few days ago, but it disappeared-

-Gil Hanse creates master plan in mid-90's

-Sounds like not much implementation between then and your post in 2003.

-Fast forward to 2008- work is implemented in the off-season, but it is the master plan of Ron Forse.

Why did the club choose to go another direction?  In this case, how does one build on anothers master plan?  Thanks.

Scott

 

[mike_malone]

 Scott,

    We redid all of the bunkers after the Hanse master plan which was a major effort and expense. When we were able ,over the years, to convince the club to remove trees based on the plan we did so. But, that was a major battle until we got our present green super.


      As to why we did not use Hanse  I don't know for sure.


       A few years ago I was on the green cmte. when a long time member suggested we stop our amateur application of the master plan and bring in a consultant. I recommended Forse because I had been with him on his first visit to RG and I was impressed  with his reverence for Flynn and his proven work at Flynn courses.

    Rightly or wrongly I believe we thought Hanse had moved out of our league. From the time of his plan in 98 until the mid 2000"s his prestige had risen substantially ,and rightly so, based on his own work and restoration efforts.


    So we brought in Forse and Nagle each year and did a few things each year, mostly tees.

        To the club's credit they decided it was time to restore the bunkers, remove the last offending trees, and recontour the fairways so they decided to update our master plan. They used the wonderful Hanse plan which , in my opinion, was a homage to Flynn and combined that with the original Flynn plans and our aerial photos from the year the course opened and others taken within the first decade.


   They superimposed the original design upon the early photos to create a large image for the shaper to use on the bunkers. This was very well done.


           They used several of Hanse's ideas that had not been implemented before.