C&C Warren Course at Notre Dame (pics)

[Eric_Terhorst]

I can’t recall seeing many pictures here of the Coore-Crenshaw course at Notre Dame, called the “Warren Course” by the University, so when I was out there on my first visit last weekend I snapped a few.  

I liked the course.  The property is flattish, but the back nine has a few holes that make imaginative use of a creek and the few slopes offered.  The bunkering and green complexes add to the interest and the overall effect is excellent.  

Fairway bunkering is a mix of 1) a few that you have to carry to get in the ideal position, 2) center-line and flanking bunkers well-placed at distances to make the longer hitter think twice from the back tees, and the golfer of more modest talents to worry from the middle tees.  I played the back tees on a moist day and could aim at many of the flanking and center-line fairway bunkers without fear of reaching them.  During the summer with firmer conditions this may not be true.  

Several of the greens featured a false front, and with one or two exceptions the green contours heightened the challenge.  Only one green, #4 absolutely requires an aerial approach.  The others may be also approached on the ground, though a couple (#5 and #16) have nasty little fronting pot bunkers that may dictate approach depending on hole placement.  

The course is set up with a challenging 2-4” rough bordering the wide fairways and a heavy prairie grass outside of that—the long grass is =lost ball or hacking out.  For my taste, I’d like to see the grass shortened around some of the greens to promote chipping as opposed to lobbing out of the rough.  Trees do not figure much into the design.  The conditioning in October was remarkably good, and greens were true and fast--apparently management does a lot of maintenance in August in anticipation of ND population’s arrival in force for the school year.  It’s been open since ’99 or ’00.  I was also told that Messrs. Coore and Crenshaw recently visited and were pleased with how the course is coming along.

The yardages below are the ones where the back tees are normally set ~6700, though there is a set of championship tees that are listed on the card at 7023.  Pictures:

#2 462yd par 4 is tough mostly because of the length—only this hole and #18 have no fairway bunkers in play off the tee.  Approach:




#4 147yd par 3.  The only large fronting bunker on the course.  




#4 Close-up of bunker and green




#5 518yd par 5 Flanking fairway bunkers from the tee.




#5 green.
 



#6 436yd par 4 from the tee.  Note trees flanking fairway




#6 Approach—I don’t understand why the flanking trees are desirable or necessary.  Even without them it would play long and challenging.  




#7 398 yd par 4.  C/L bunker at 244 from the tee.  Lots of trouble left.  Interesting hole.  Note however the two crappy trees (that appear to be dead) in the left rough area, placed I guess to prevent the long hitter from cutting the corner.  




#7 green



#8 414yd par 4, green  Note false front feature, occurs on several greens.



#10 495yd par 5.  My favorite on the course.  A drive over the right side fairway bunker (sorry, I forgot to take a picture of this) tests the players’ ability to skirt the woods right, but success is rewarded with a boost from the downhill slope on that right side of the fairway, leaving 200-240 in to a small green protected by a creek.  This pic shows the approach from about 150.  The 2nd can be layed up in front of the creek or played to the generous landing area to the right of the green.




#10 Once over the creek, if you've played out to the right, you must deal with this shot on your approach, where an over-cooked chip or pulled pitch can easily find the hazard.




#11 216yd par 3.  This and a couple of other greens had an unusual squarish shape.




#11 green showing false front and small swale that affords an interesting hole placement.



#12 443yd par 4.  Bunker left, woods right, not a very distinguished green, flat terrain.  Least interesting hole on the course.



#13 433yd par 4.  This hole turns left at the end of the hole, a mini-dogleg. These bunkers guard the shortcut.



#14 197yd par 3.



#15 380yd par 4, view from tee shows bunkers flanking left and right.



#15, right side fairway.   I’m not enamored of this bunch ‘o bunkers look, which imo doesn't resemble anything in nature.



#16  345yd par 4.  Excellent short hole.  Big hitters can launch it over the bunkers left to get closer to the green.  The rest of us play safely to the right…
 


#16  approach



#16 green close-up. Green has great contouring to protect this short hole.
Note to Brian Phillips: My wife said about this bunker, “Look at that cute little hairy bunker!”  
 


#17 is a solid uphill 480yd par 5 with this green.



#18 434yd par 4.  Challenging home hole requires 211/192/120 to carry the creek from the back/middle/front, has trouble all down the left side.  

[Trey Kemp]

Thanks for the pics Eric!  Some interesting ones like the one of the 5th green.  The bunker looks tiny!

[Andy Troeger]

Eric,

Thanks for posting. A bit of background information regarding #7, there used to be a big tree that overhung the left side a little bit that created some challenge for long hitters trying to take the shortcut down that side. I think those little trees were intended to replace that, but they evidently did not work. The center bunker was not added until the tree died or fell over or whatever happened to it. I liked the hole better before, but its still a good one now.

I agree with you in that #10 is my favorite hole on the course. While not the most interesting hole on the course, #12 I think has a little more strategy than you gave it credit for. The hole sets up better from the right side of the fairway, however, the trees and woods right lead to a lost ball risk. The hole is 440 or so from the back so the more subtle green keeps the hole from being too hard. In working there for a couple years and playing it quite a few times I found it to be one of the toughest (if not the toughest) hole on the course for me.

You alluded to this as well but the biggest frustration I have with the course as presented now is the long grass off the sides of the holes. It is too thick overall and leads to too many lost balls. In some spots it used to be at least moderately playable (and not as close to the fairway) which was preferable to me.

[Sean_A]

Dreadful


Dreadful


Sublime (except for the shag doo)


Sorry, but I can get surly when I drink.

Thanks for posting Eric.  


Ciao

[Ken Fry]

#7 398 yd par 4.  C/L bunker at 244 from the tee.  Lots of trouble left.  Interesting hole.  Note however the two crappy trees (that appear to be dead) in the left rough area, placed I guess to prevent the long hitter from cutting the corner.  

Eric,

There was a large tree which helped guard the left side of the hole.  It unfortunately was a victim of bad weather and the entire right side of the tree was lost.  The two trees you elude to in the picture will be removed soon.  They were added to help "protect" the easier left line off the tee but never took.

The center line bunker was added before the large tree was lost.  During the addition of about 300 yards to the course for the college kids, this bunker on #7 and the bunker on #1 were added.  It makes them think twice about pulling driver and just ripping one.

Ken

[Ken Fry]

Dreadful


Dreadful


Sublime (except for the shag doo)


Sorry, but I can get surly when I drink.

Thanks for posting Eric.  


Ciao

Sean,

Drinking or not, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't been on this course.  If you had, you would know the following:

#15 was originally designed as a 380 yard par 4 from the back tees.  The cluster of bunkers on the right of the fairway stare you in the face from the tee.  Lay back and have a longer shot to a great green complex.  Dare them with a driver and the fairway narrows down as you try to draw a tee shot away from them while also being pinched in from the fairway bunker on the left.  One of the bunkers is no bigger than a card table.  Get into it, no chance of getting to the green.

#16 is a 345 yard uphill par 4 that visually looks twice that length.  Dare the bunker complex and get closer to the green.  Play away from them and have a longer carry over the creek that runs diagnally away to the right.  The bunker complex leads your eye to the green but you should never be in them.

#5 sublime??  Keep drinking buddy.  Pin locations alone can make the approach shot interesting but the contours of this green are phenominal.  A left front pin location is viewed as a bit unfair because of the small landing area but you can play the contours up and around the front bunker to reach it.

Dreadful is a harsh description.  What's impressive about Warren is a piece of property with almost no character was transformed into a fime facility.

Eric, thanks for posting the pics.  I hope you had a good day at ND.

Ken

[Andy Troeger]

Ken,
I didn't realize the bunker was put in on #7 before the tree. Interesting. I still don't like that bunker by the way since there's not much room on either side to get by it. Laying up behind it isn't a big deal, I just don't think its a good center bunker as those things go.

Is it me or is the pin front-left on #5 about 50% of the time, or do they just know when I'm coming!

Sean,
I would tend to agree that dreadful is a bit strong for a course you're judging by pictures. I know you have your idea of what looks good and what doesn't, but happily not everyone builds courses that look the same. I think the ones on #15 are a bit overkill, but dreadful is a bit much.

[George Pazin]

Anyone else having trouble seeing more than the first 2 photos?

Sean, one thing to keep in mind is how 2-D photographs tend to make everything like more packed in. My dad used to call it the foreshortening effect of lens.

[Joe Hancock]

George,

I'm also a two pic kinda guy.

Joe

[Eric_Terhorst]

Eric,

There was a large tree which helped guard the left side of the hole.  It unfortunately was a victim of bad weather and the entire right side of the tree was lost.  The two trees you elude to in the picture will be removed soon.  They were added to help "protect" the easier left line off the tee but never took.

The center line bunker was added before the large tree was lost.  During the addition of about 300 yards to the course for the college kids, this bunker on #7 and the bunker on #1 were added.  It makes them think twice about pulling driver and just ripping one.

Ken, thanks for your responses.  I'm glad to hear those trees will be removed.  I think the hole works great without them or the large tree you and Andy mention was there before.  

Re: your comments to Sean on #15-- I think the big fairway bunker on #5 works much better as an intimidating feature.  If I were to find one of those little bunkers on 15, I would ascribe it more to bad luck than a bad choice or bad shot.  Plus the bunch-o-bunkers look just seems contrived--Pete Dye got carried away with this technique at Whistling Straits too, imo.

These are quibbles for me, though.  I agree with you that the designers made great use of the property.  

George and Joe, the pics were somehow deleted from my on-line storage at Comcast, but are back up now.  

[Joe Hancock]

Eric,

Thanks. I doubt this course is even two hours from me, and I haven't made it there yet. I'm ashamed.

I'll have more time on my hands in a couple weeks. Maybe a nice Fall day will get me there.

Joe

[Michael Dugger]

C & C bunkering never grows old....IMHO  

[Chris_Clouser]

Eric,

I posted an essay earlier this year on Warren in my Indiana series.  Though it is a fine course, I found it to be a little repetitive.  The bunker clusters I thought were overused and not needed in many instances.  The rough was extremely deep and almost unplayable when I was there as well.  The greens are somewhat similar in that they all slope from back to front and only one has a closed entrance (the 4th).  They did have a little variety to the internal contours but it was somewhat repetitive with the main strategy being to be hole high or lower on your approaches.  The course also appeared to be overwatered as we had balls plug in the fairway all day and it had not rained for a week prior to our being there.  

The course had a wonderful old small town country club and reminded me of several Perry Maxwell courses in Oklahoma like Muskogee, Hillcrest or Oakwood.  I would say it is possibly a top 15 public in Indiana.  

I find it funny that someone would give any bunkering by C&C a free pass, especially some of those bunker clusters that serve no purpose.    

[Eric_Terhorst]

Chris,

I thought you must have done a post on Warren, but the search function didn't unearth it for me.

Agree there might be some "sameness" about a couple of the par 4s and the the par 3s 11 and 14 seemed like the same template to me.  I felt the fairway rough was mitigated by the width off the tee, but I had one of my better days driving.

Re the green contouring, I think on repeat play the variety of possible hole placements would be more evident.  Your "country club" comment is  on point--this would be a fun course to play regularly.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Is the course 1 and 7 as well? lolololol

[Brendan Dolan]

I got to play the course earlier this fall, and I really liked it.  I thought that the par fours got a little repetitive.  I thought the green complexes were really well done.  

I personally did not like # 10.  It didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the course.  It is to bad they allow carts out there, becuase it is an excellent course to walk.

Brendan  

[Michael Dugger]

To say a bunker serves no purpose is essentially the same as saying a bunker "is not fair."

Every bunker serves a purpose.  Avoid 'em!

[Brent Hutto]

#5 green.

Why does this bunker have rough around it (aka "shag do")?

Perhaps I don't understand the hole. Longer hitters would presumably be playing some sort of low shot toward the green, right? Perhaps even trying to run a draw up from short and right of the green and utilize the backstop.

To my mind if you're picturing a running shot that plays the green contours it's natural to also picture a running shot being captured by the bunker. Or maybe even a lucky shot doing something funny by rimming out (no visual pun intended) without catching the sand.

Instead, half the time a ball misses short of the middle of the green the result will be plunk as the ball nestles down in that thick rough. Boring. You can see that anywhere there's long grass.

Then again, maybe I fail to miss the point here...

[wsmorrison]

Eric,

I could not see any of the photos on Mozilla Firefox.  When I use Internet Explorer, I can view all of them.  I don't know why that is, but it's happened before.

[Tom Huckaby]

Cool looking course.  I can think of 38 reasons why it's nice, and 0 why it's not.

 

[Chris_Clouser]

Michael,

Thanks for putting words in my mouth while trying to dismiss any commentary that is not entirely positive about C&C.

But I disagree entirely.  To say a bunker is not fair is to imply that the architect should not put a bunker in a position that would unduly punish what many would deem a good shot.

I said no such thing.  I said they serve no purpose.  The first picture that Sean labeled as dreadful is a perfect example.  There is no reason to have all of those bunkers.  First, the right side of that hole is not the line of play, so nobody will be aiming that direction.  Second, if somebody goes that far right from their intended line then the rough is more than suitable for a penalty, especially with those trees somewhat blocking the shot into the green.  Thirdly, this is a public course that sees significant traffic and those bunker clusters do hold up play at times.

Those clusters are like that all over the course and I would say that half of them are superfluous as they are placed in positions that no one would want to hit towards.  The second hole that Sean labeled as dreadful is an example where they serve a purpose.  

From a maintenance perspective, I would think having those as individual bunkers costs a ton more than having one large bunker, only having 2 or 3 of them, or just having it as rough when the end result would be the same for the player.  

Also, I personally think they are not nearly as attractive as having a fewer number of bunkers or perhaps one large bunker.  But that is just an opinion on the looks, so I won't argue about that if you disagree.

In my mind, the second hole at Warren is bunkered almost perfectly and it does not have one of those crazy clusters.  

Just because a bunker is there does not mean it is impactful.
Just because C&C place the bunker does not mean it is a masterpiece of architecture and is free of criticism.  I truly feel that if this course had the name of Fazio associated with it, this thread would be three times as long and not a positive word would be put on it about the bunkering.

Now don't get me wrong, I like the Warren Course a lot.  But it has some flaws and I think the bunker clusters are one of them.

[Phil McDade]

Eric:

Good pictures; for the life of me, why do courses keep trees in the line of play of interesting bunkers (hole #6)?

I'm off two minds on the shabby bunker look of those two "lion's-mouth" like bunkers on 5 and 16. I sort of like the look on 16, but not so on 5 (perhaps because 5 looks a bit more like it could take a ground/running shot, and therefore ought to have a gathering bunker, while 16 looks like the green is above the fairway, and thus more of an aerial shot). The droppings of bunkers are awful; University Ridge, another university-affiliated course here in Madison, has them on a par 5 on the back nine, and they look worse than the ones at Warren.

How much does rough impact the chipping areas of the greens? I ask because several green sites looked a bit "pushed-up" from the fairway, and thus lend themselves to "shrugging off" shots not hit well on approach. I think that's a fine design concept, but if utilized, I think closely mown chipping areas are in order near the greens.

How much of an emphasis is there on cart use vs. walking? I ask because I saw a few carts, yet its terrain suggests a very easily walked course.

[George Pazin]

#5 green.

Why does this bunker have rough around it (aka "shag do")?

Perhaps I don't understand the hole. Longer hitters would presumably be playing some sort of low shot toward the green, right? Perhaps even trying to run a draw up from short and right of the green and utilize the backstop.

To my mind if you're picturing a running shot that plays the green contours it's natural to also picture a running shot being captured by the bunker. Or maybe even a lucky shot doing something funny by rimming out (no visual pun intended) without catching the sand.

Instead, half the time a ball misses short of the middle of the green the result will be plunk as the ball nestles down in that thick rough. Boring. You can see that anywhere there's long grass.

Then again, maybe I fail to miss the point here...

I'd guess it more to keep it in character with the other bunkers. Aesthetically, it may look out of place to have smooth funneling sides, even though it might function more effectively that way.

That's my guess anyway.

[Michael Dugger]

Michael,

Thanks for putting words in my mouth while trying to dismiss any commentary that is not entirely positive about C&C.

But I disagree entirely.  To say a bunker is not fair is to imply that the architect should not put a bunker in a position that would unduly punish what many would deem a good shot.

I said no such thing.  I said they serve no purpose.  The first picture that Sean labeled as dreadful is a perfect example.  There is no reason to have all of those bunkers.  First, the right side of that hole is not the line of play, so nobody will be aiming that direction.  Second, if somebody goes that far right from their intended line then the rough is more than suitable for a penalty, especially with those trees somewhat blocking the shot into the green.  Thirdly, this is a public course that sees significant traffic and those bunker clusters do hold up play at times.

Those clusters are like that all over the course and I would say that half of them are superfluous as they are placed in positions that no one would want to hit towards.  The second hole that Sean labeled as dreadful is an example where they serve a purpose.  

From a maintenance perspective, I would think having those as individual bunkers costs a ton more than having one large bunker, only having 2 or 3 of them, or just having it as rough when the end result would be the same for the player.  

Also, I personally think they are not nearly as attractive as having a fewer number of bunkers or perhaps one large bunker.  But that is just an opinion on the looks, so I won't argue about that if you disagree.

In my mind, the second hole at Warren is bunkered almost perfectly and it does not have one of those crazy clusters.  

Just because a bunker is there does not mean it is impactful.
Just because C&C place the bunker does not mean it is a masterpiece of architecture and is free of criticism.  I truly feel that if this course had the name of Fazio associated with it, this thread would be three times as long and not a positive word would be put on it about the bunkering.

Now don't get me wrong, I like the Warren Course a lot.  But it has some flaws and I think the bunker clusters are one of them.

eh, okay?  

Bunkers serve many purposes.  Aesthetic as well

[Eric_Terhorst]

why do courses keep trees in the line of play of interesting bunkers (hole #6)?

I'm of two minds on the shabby bunker look of those two "lion's-mouth" like bunkers on 5 and 16. I sort of like the look on 16, but not so on 5 (perhaps because 5 looks a bit more like it could take a ground/running shot, and therefore ought to have a gathering bunker...

How much does rough impact the chipping areas of the greens?

How much of an emphasis is there on cart use vs. walking?

Phil, I hope management will consider taking down the trees on #6 as long they've got the chainsaws gassed up for the dead trees on #7.  

Like you and Brent, I wondered about the shaggy bunkers, but let me propose a potential answer to the question.  On #5, when you stand out there in the fairway trying to decide whether to run it up from way out or lay up and then pitch it over the bunker, the grass in the bunker impacts your decision.  A pitch is likely to more accurate, but on the off chance it flies into that grass, that lie will be ugly.  A long running shot might be more likely to miss its target, but if it trickles in to the bunker it might find its way into the sand or sit up higher in the grass.  I say the grass on #5 impacts each player and his options differently, and I think it works.

On #16, it’s just a fearsome thing that is there to protect the hole.  The grass adds to the fear and makes you want to be sure you hit that approach long enough.  On the other hand, if you hit it above the hole, you’ve got a science project to get up and down.  I think the shaggy bunker works there too.  The greatness of Royal County Down (shaggy and deep) and Dornoch (smooth and grass-faced) suggests to me there is room for lots of variety in bunker design.  

The grass on the sides and back of the greens is generally long, and you can see a couple of examples in the pictures.  I’d like to see more short grass in those areas—certainly that’s what you get at C&C’s Saguaro course.    

The course is a nice walk, and walking is not discouraged.

Wayne Morrison, I am able to load the pics in Firefox, so who knows??