Bob Cupp fixes a mistake?

[Chris Cupit]

A few years ago Bob Cupp re-did Druid Hills GC in Atlanta.  It was on old H.H. Barker course (I think) from 1912.  Anyway, after it was complete I was critical of 2 holes in particular--#6 and #15--coincidentally, the two holes most affected by Bob's work.

Anyway, the "Cupp 15th hole" was a 375 yard hole (from the tips), very uphill and doglegging slightly left.  There was a forced carry from EVERY set of tees that was impossible for most everyone even when playing from the "correct" set of tees.  

FWIW, the second shot was semi-blind, continued uphill to a very severe green with a large false front.  Assuming you were one of the lucky few to get across the wetlands and the 30 yard wide creek, you then tried to hit a semi-chunk wedge so as not to spin the ball back off the green.

For example, the first year of the Dogwood Invitational (good college kids) after the re-do, 1/3 of the field did not carry the hazard.  The hazard started with a wetland area about 75 yards in front of the tee and there was nowhere to lay up if you didn't feel you could carry the hazard.  (OK--I guess you could try and hit a SW to a forward tee )

So short and left are hazard with litle choice but to go for it.  Oh, and right was OB.  The tongue of the fairway just over the hazard was 20 yards wide or so and again, OB was to the right--next to a cart path.

Only by mismarking the hazard as lateral could a player get across to the other side and finish the hole!  

Bob Cupp has agreed to come back without charge and redo the hole.  According to the GM, the new hole will pipe alot of the former hazard and create three ponds out of the old wetland.  The effect will be to widen the landing area for the drive and shorten the forced carry over any hazard(s).

My question is this:  When an architect screws up a hole this badly, what is his responsibility in fixing the error?  Obviously, he wouldn't charge for his time and "expertise" in changing the design, but the membership will bear the brunt of an expensive fix!  Is the architect "doing enough" to give back just his time, or could there be  a case when he should shoulder some of the financial burden of fixing an unplayable hole?

[Garland Bayley]

When my new car comes off the lot broken, they don't fix it for free as long as I pay for the parts. I guess that should tell you where I stand on this.

[Chris Cupit]

Garland,

I hear you and agree.  With architecture though, isn't it more subjective?  One COULD finish the hole and it is some matter of opinion as to how bad the re-do #15 really was/is.

Does an architect take a risk "admitting" his mistake by coming back to fix his own work?  Certainly, some minor tweaking is one thing that I think would be appreciated in many circumstances.  BUT, if one is talking about fundamentally "fixing" the whole hole, (on my dime) isn't that another thing!

[Mike_Young]

Chris,
I think first we should agree that calling a design feature a mistake is a matter of opinion....and I respect your opinion
I don't know much about the new changes at DH but I do know that I enjoy the bob cupp courses I have played and think he puts more thought into strategy than many....
I also think Bob would expect to come back and offer to help with an issue on one of his projects....
I definitely don't think he should bear any of the burden of the construction changes.....it would have cost to do some of these changes initally also.....

The fortunate thing is that DH thinks enough of what Bob Cupp did that they are giving him the leeway to adjust such issues....it speaks for the quality of the club.( and we don't know if this had been discussed as an alternative beforehand)
Almost 20 years ago I remember him tellng me once (he would not remember) that one needed to work toward better budgets and one must be able to survive his bad  jobs in order to make it in this business. ......I now know what he meant because when I got started I  had clients that would not have allowed one to fix or adjust such issues because they just did not have the money ....and because one is new or not as well known it can become the architect's fault in the public eye...
I think back to all of the old dead guys that are discussed on this site and wonder how much of their work would be accepted if they had not had the opportunity to make changes on their courses over time....Donald ross and #2.....Pete Dye and the TPC and some of his others.......
IMO I think this should be viewed as a positive for both architect and club.....these golf courses are moving targets...
Mike

[Gary Daughters]

An aside..

Bob Cupp's Feature Interview is one of the more entertaining of those installments.  I recommend it to all who haven't read it.

[Chris Cupit]

No doubt that DHGC is a first rate place with a great membership.  I also know that William Shirley  ???raves about how helpful Bob was at Peachtree on some recent work.

I also agree that a design feature is subjective.  But this design feature was a forced carry over a hazard that was damn near impossible for the entire membership.  At what point does an experienced archie say, "OK I blew this one AND it's up to me to fix?"  I suppose a lot depends on the discusions that took place when building the hole and who knows, maybe a committee pushed him to create the hole as he did.

I am pretty sure that was not the case though and all I am asking is to what degree should an archie be on the hook if an idea of his is a disaster?

PS  Have any of you played the hole?

[Chris Cupit]

Mike,

I hear your point that DH had enough confidence to have him continue his work but if a club had a competent archie (no arguing about Bob's qualifications or the fact that he has done some nice work) who agreed AT NO COST to come back and re-work some previous hole, why wouldn't they take him up on his offer??

Is it confidence or just the fact that they don't have to pay for another archie to come and "fix" his work (assuming they are going to fix the hole for certain)??

[Andy Doyle]

I have a number of friends that are members, so I'll have to ask them for more of the backstory on this one, but here are my observations having played the new hole a few times.

I'm not sure he had too many routing options for this hole.  The par 5 14th takes the course to its farthest point from the clubhouse, and I think probably the lowest point on the property.  The old 15th played back towards the clubhouse (to the left of the new hole) but the fairway was in the floodplain of the creek that runs through this part of the course.  According to members it was almost always wet and soggy.

You couldn't go left of that without changing the 14th.  If they went right of the old hole (which is what they did) the new hole had to climb a big hill.  I recall they had some permitting issues with the new hole because they had to cut down a bunch of trees - not easy in an established neighborhood in the "city of trees."

The drive is a tough proposition, but I wouldn't say it's impossible.  I've played the hole 3 or 4 times and have only failed to carry the hazard once.  I'm not super long, but you do have to be able to carry your drive a fair distance.

(OK--I guess you could try and hit a SW to a forward tee )

You joke, but that's exactly what a guy I've played with a number of times does on this hole.  He's a pretty good golfer but is not very long.  He got tired of losing balls in the hazard and aims a wedge at the forward tee as a layup short of the hazard.

I don't particularly like this hole, but I don't think it's so bad.  To me, the main issue is that the tees are not located well for such an uphill tee shot.  The second shot is uphill and blind, but we like blind, don't we?

Might be interesting to move the tees foward and more to the left, making the hole shorter and more of a dogleg.  Big hitters could take a rip at the green or layup to a good spot in the fairway with an iron or 5-wood.  While it would still have a forced carry, it would be short enough for most to carry with a driver, 3W.

I guess another option is to move the green even further up the hill so the tees could be moved up close to the hazard so the carry is minimal.

It's be interesting to see what they do.

Chris - what don't you like about the new 6th?

Andy

[Chris Cupit]

Andy,

I've probally played 100 rounds at DH and I was very fond of the "old" course.  I do love quirky and I am a fan of a lot of blind holes many don't like (I loved the old 4th at DH).

The old 15th did have a weak drive and was wet by the creek.  But the second shot was very strong with a great green tucked into the hillside and flanked by the large creek.  I would have thought given the money they must have spent re-routing the hole and clearing a new path the way they did, they could have used that money to keep the hole as it was and maybe do extensive drainage work.  It could get wet but it had been there since 1912!  I really don't know if that was an option but given that BC had a clean slate to work with, his 15 really sucked.  To force good, albeit short hitters to lay up to a forward tee is stupid (and I know, I heard about some guy doing the same at Merion #18 but believe me, this ai'nt no Merion!).

Hole #6 was a medium length par 3 set beautifully next to a hillside.  It was a 6 or 7 iron (160-170) a little uphill and the only thing that needed work was that the green was too severe at modern green speeds.  A very slight re-contouring would have done the trick.  Instead, a completely new hole was created.

The new hole moved the tee and green so instead you have a 115 yard par 3, more uphill, completely blind (you can see the flag) to the most severley tiered green on the course.  The tee shot (even with a wedge or 9 iron) has to be threaded between two field goal posts (trees).  With the hole in some locations, the trees block you out--hard to hit a big draw or fade with a wedge!
Oh, and right behind the green, hidden from view of course, is a lake.  Nice.

Blind, uphill, between two trees to very severe green with a hidden lake right behind the putting surface!

I heard it was done to improve the tee shot on #7 but that stayed virtually the same.  Old #6 was way better--all they had to do was have the greens rolling at a 10 or less or make a slight change.  Instead we got a new hole and it ai'nt much!!

[Chris Cupit]

An aside..

Bob Cupp's Feature Interview is one of the more entertaining of those installments.  I recommend it to all who haven't read it.

It is a great read and Bob is dead on about the ball going too far and the game being too expensive.  But, he still messed up #15  

Also, I'd always be a little wary of a guy that uses "forsooth" more than once per interview

[Andy Doyle]

Chris:

I know the old 15 has been there for 90 years, but I think the drainage and water flow situation has been a major problem in recent years.  Maybe it's increased runoff from city streets, but they have some real problems with water flow through the major creeks in the property.

They have a major project going on with the part of the creek that fronts #8 green.  After the reno, in a heavy rain the little creek would back up and overflow into the fairway area.  They have also had real problems with the bridges over the creeks down by 14 & 15 tee.  It looks like they failed to build the bridges high/wide enough to handle the peak stream flow.  In big storms the water has been damming up at the bridges and eroding the ground away from the bridge heads.  I don't know if they just didn't build them high/wide enough or if the waterflow has been greater than the projections they used to design the bridges.

R.e. #6 I suppose they could have recontoured the old #6, but I thought it was a very tough side hill hole/green.

One of my member friends told me (so this could be 3rd, 4th or 5th hand) that when he heard complaints from members that the new 6th was going to be such a short hole, Cupp said something like "Alright, then I'll just make it the hardest hole on the course."  

I don't like the goalpost trees either, but it's a hole that demands great distance control - uphill, semi-blind, false front, water back left, distinct tiers, etc.

What do you think of the bunkering on 7 and 9?

Andy

[Steve_ Shaffer]

How much is the redo going to cost the club?

Doesn't a golf course architect carry liability insurance?

Is this an example of architectural malpractice that would be covered by insurance if a claim were to be made?

Perhaps a claim  was made and the redo is being paid for by insurance.

[Sean Leary]

I played in the member guest there a couple of years back, and they had the tees moved way up, so that it became an almost drivable par 4 I want to say 280 yards or so).  I don't remember exactly where the back tee was, but I think it was right next to 14 green. How long is the carry from there?

[Chris Cupit]

Andy,

#7 was tough no matter what was done.  I always hated the row of "toy soldier crabapple trees" down the right side of the fairway.  I guess it was done for safety but it always looked too formal and out of place.  

Anyway, the bunkering at first gave me a headache!  Lots of flashy white bunkers that seemed excessive.  I think some of the bunkering replaced the "fruit" trees so that was good.  The bunkering around the green forces a player to fly it on the green but as a short par 5 I assume that was the intention.

#9 is nice although as much as people hated the old fairway and felt it was "unfair" I would not have levelled it as much!  I would have tried to keep some of the severity if possible--to me that's what "made" the hole.  I actually think it's a much easier hole now.

Sean,

I think from the back tee it was 237 or so to carry the shortest portion of the creek--the area pinched by the creek and OB.  Of course the carry was much longer the farther left you went and the carry was uphill quite a bit.  The top bank was well above the tee and it wasn't unheard of for a tee shot that even carried the creek to roll back and sideways intto the hazard.  If the hazard were marked correctly as a regualr water hazard and the player could only re-tee or keep the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard, it could be "impossible" to finish.

Let me be clear--Druid Hills is a great golf club and really neat place to play.  However, I do think it is ironic that the two holes most significantly changed by BC are the two weakest on the course now.  As good as BC is I just don't get how he could have made such a big mistake in building a hole that is virtually unplayable for the entire membership.

[Tags:]

Tags: