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 McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
A different hole to discuss
« on: December 26, 2007, 04:13:18 PM »
Since it has been suggested that we discuss other holes / courses I will voulenteer a hole few have seen. It is the 7th at West Bend CC in Wisconsin. Designed and built  Langford / Moreau in 1930. It is thought to be the best hole on the course by low and high handicappers. Andy North supposidly said it was one of his favorite short par fours.

The hole is 350 yards from the middle of the mens tee. The fairway bottlenecks at 110 yards from the green.

Going through the fairway on the left will result in a downhill lie to a VERY elevated green. The middle of the fairway is quite sloped (R to L) .
There is a nice flat spot left (just before the bottleneck) and a flat spot on the very right of the fairway short of the dropoff.

Most players lay up arounfd 120 but our 12 time club champion hits driver and tries to get as close as possible.

Anything short requires a blind pitch. Left same but could be gone. Long leaves a dicey pitch to a very undulating green that runs back to front and left to right.

There is no sand on the hole but it shows sand on the original design.

Anything you like or don't like?



Google earth





From  tee




from 120 -  player is at 100


TEPaul

Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2007, 04:35:37 PM »
Mike:

That looks to be some serious earthwork manufacturing on that hole but the entire thing just looks to play ultra-cool and optional. And to me, despite the dramatic man-made earthwork look of it, it looks great too.

This just shows that the apparent diverse world of man-made engineered architecture vs minimal earthworking and natural looking architecture probably doesn't matter much if it's done in some interesting aesthetic way and most importantly it plays interesting and well too.

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2007, 04:44:10 PM »
Let me be the first to say that this hole shows how utterly inadequate aerials can be to show the character of a hole. LOVE the ground movement, and love the fortress-like green. I actually found myself landing right and short and rolling back down the hill, and this was just from looking at the photograph (I've not played the hole). Looks like finding the flatter spots off the tee would worth learning to do.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

wsmorrison

Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2007, 04:46:07 PM »
From what I've seen of Lanford and Moreau (pictures only), their work intrigues me much more so than Raynor or Banks, even in the templates.  It is because their manufactured features, though easily discerned are tied in better and seem to have less geometry and quite a bit of strategy.

Was the fairway extended further left at some point near the bottleneck?  Given the cant of the fairway, I think that would be a strategic improvement so that the longer hitters can't just bomb it down the fairway, they would have to shape their shot or have a much more difficult angle into the green, which it appears happens the further left one goes.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 04:46:30 PM by Wayne Morrison »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2007, 04:49:46 PM »
Where did L&M have bunkers?

Interesting hole.

Bob

TEPaul

Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2007, 04:52:35 PM »
Wayne:

Although Langford/Moreau's architectural style certainly can be manufactured looking and dramatically so, would you say it's more acceptable looking to you because the basic lines of the manufacturing is quite a bit more curvi-linear than say Raynor's basic man-made lines?

Peter Nomm

Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2007, 04:58:24 PM »
I have played this hole and yes, it is really fun.  I like it because of the options - for example, if the pin is back, I prefer to drive it as close as possible to the green and hit the short pitch and run.  If I were to lay back and have a full wedge in, I am more likely to spin it back to the front of the green (hitting it past the hole is very risky).  If the pin is up, then I am comfortable laying up and throwing a wedge at it.  

To me this is why I LOVE short holes - because of the options available - and #7 at WBCC is a great example!

Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2007, 05:00:32 PM »
TEPaul -

I have the original design drawn over the existing topography (one foot contour lines).

Very little dirt was moved to create this fairway.

Obviously cut and fills to create the 2 fairway bunkers - but both of those were put into existing slopes.  

Also cuts around to create the greenpad - but for the most part the hole was just sitting there..


Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2007, 05:07:41 PM »
"Was the fairway extended further left at some point near the bottleneck?  Given the cant of the fairway, I think that would be a strategic improvement so that the longer hitters can't just bomb it down the fairway, they would have to shape their shot or have a much more difficult angle into the green, which it appears happens the further left one goes."

Wayne:

Yes - looking at the original drawing the fairway was wide all the way to the green. Currently most shots that goe to far - down the left side - hang up in 2.5 " bluegrass and get caught on a downslope.

If it was fairway the ball would run down to the bottom - leaving a shorter shot off a better lie: but much more uphill. The angle would not be much of an issue.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 05:45:30 PM by Mike McGuire »

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2007, 05:10:45 PM »
...
There is no sand on the hole but it shows sand on the original design.
...
...
Obviously cut and fills to create the 2 fairway bunkers - but both of those were put into existing slopes.  
...

 ??? ??? ??? ???
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2007, 05:17:11 PM »

Garland -

We call them grass bunkers. Do you need sand to call it a bunker?

Dan Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2007, 05:28:29 PM »
It would be great if Mike could post the original L/M drawing of WBCC #7.  

A great hole that takes maximum advantage of the natural terrain.  Great because of the variety of options off the tee offering a choice of lay-up distances, uphill downhill or sidehill lies, and differing views of the green and angles of attack.  You really can't ask for more in the way of a short yet not driveable par 4.  Then add to that a great, reasonably sloped, bunkerless green perched on top of the hill.  I was unfortunate to run through the fairway on the left leaving a tricky downhill lie on a very uphill shot.  Even with a wedge no way to stop it and it ran to the back fringe leaving a very tricky downhill chip/putt.  

Langford and Moreau's ability to manufacture natural lines is very much in evidence on this hole.  The bunker form on the left plays off the natural shape of the hill behind it.  The right hand bunker then flows off and away from the shape of the left bunker while at the same time its staggered position vis a vis the left bunker and their relationship to the natural undulations of the landing area define the strategy of the drive.  Great stuff.  

My guess is that L/M were more sucessfull in integrating their manufactured look into the terrain and obtaining a natural look while incorporating strategic ideas of the highest order than Raynor/Banks because they were able to match R/Bs engineering and construction abilities and complement those skills with Langford's more advanced knowledge of the game as a reasonably proficient player.  Thus, while L/M clearly reused a variety of concepts and hole types including several of CBM's templates, they also were able to develop original strategic concepts adapted to specific site as shown by WBCC #7.  
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 05:33:39 PM by Dan Moore »
"Is there any other game which produces in the human mind such enviable insanity."  Bernard Darwin

JohnV

Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2007, 05:30:32 PM »
Mike, the definition of "bunker" in the Rules is only for those filled with sand or similar material.  "Grass Bunker" is an undefined term in the Rules.  

Given the specific definition of "bunker" I would think it would have to have sand in it to be used alone.  Hollow might be a better term for a "Grass Bunker", but "Grass Bunker" is ok with me.

Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2007, 05:39:08 PM »

Is this a better look?  A better hole?  


Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2007, 05:42:57 PM »
Garland,




Not to say they were formulaic. I find thier diverse use of featuring to be as thoughtful as the best of them. Sand or no sand
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 05:43:56 PM by Adam Clayman »
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

TEPaul

Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2007, 05:43:20 PM »
Hey, Mike, can photoshop put subsurface drainage in those bunkers too?

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2007, 05:45:19 PM »
OK, I think I know where the virtual bunkers are now. They look to be less than 150 yards from the tee. If I am correct, then they look to be something to take out. They don't seem to be positioned for any reasonable purpose.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #17 on: December 26, 2007, 05:47:40 PM »
Great pics Adam.

I am surprised that you posted them here instead of TEP's naturalism thread.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

TEPaul

Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2007, 05:49:20 PM »
Mike:

Is this course your course?

If it is I would really like you to do something for me (us).

See that first photo in post #14 up above that remarkably pushed up green?

Would you please go out there and scout around the immediate vicinity of that green and try to figure out where they got the fill to make that thing---eg where they made the cuts that might balance with that green construction fill?

I'm completely serious. That fact and evidence I think would be really cool for this website to know. If you're not completely sure what to look for or how to look for it please ask.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 05:50:25 PM by TEPaul »

Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2007, 05:54:53 PM »

TP -

That photo is at Lawsonia.

TEPaul

Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2007, 06:15:09 PM »
"TP -
That photo is at Lawsonia."

Miguel:

I don't want to hear any half-baked excuses!

Then go to Lawsonia immediately and walk around that green and tell me where they cut the fill to make that thing! If it's dark right now then don't forget your flashlight.

I want a full report on my desktop first thing tomorrow morning.

Dan Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2007, 06:21:08 PM »
Not only is that Lawsonia, but it is the famed "Boxcar" hole where legend has it L/M buried a boxcar in dirt to create the green in question.  

This may help discern where the fill came from.  
"Is there any other game which produces in the human mind such enviable insanity."  Bernard Darwin

TEPaul

Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2007, 06:37:31 PM »
Miguel:

Did you read that?

In that case, I don't want you spending more than ten minutes looking around that green for the cuts even if you're using your flashlight.

I want you to take that green apart tonight and see if there's a boxcar under it and I still want the report on my desktop first thing tomorrow morning.


Wayno, you pissboy, if you happen to be reading this thread I want you to get out to Merion tonight and take the 3rd green apart to find out once and for all if it's built on the foundations of a Pennsylvania bank barn.

And I want your report on my desktop first thing tomorrow morning!
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 06:40:39 PM by TEPaul »

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #23 on: December 26, 2007, 06:49:49 PM »
My favorite hole that I played this year. Along with the 5th at Machrihanish, "Punch Bowl," the best short-to-mid-range par 4 I've ever played (and I've only played West Bend once). If the standard for greatness is, "I want to turn around and play that hole again right now," then the 7th at WBCC meets the criteria.

It's a terrific hole -- visually interesting, full of strategy and options, demanding without being penal.

Wayne/Tom: Several of us played this hole during the Langford/Moreau Wisconsin tour this past fall. After our tour, Ron Forse gave a wonderful and detailed presentation on L/M's design and course engineering work. One interesting insight was that Langford -- a very good golfer and trained civil engineer -- developed incredibly detailed plans for his holes, including the amount of cubic feet of dirt he had to find and move to build his bunkers and esp. his pushed-up green pads. Langford didn't just find a bunch of dirt somewhere and build up greens; he took dirt from the area around the greensite, and used that to build them up. He often had hardly any dirt left over; that is, he took only as much dirt from the surrounds as he needed for the greensite build-up. The theory is that L/M's "look" -- heavily engineered, but perhaps less "manufactured" looking than a typical Banks or Raynor template hole -- appears more natural to the eye because the dirt displaced was in exact (or nearly so) proportion to the amount of dirt used for those signature pushed-up greens. Langford (in another indication of his remarkable skills as an architect) also dug up his dirt to enhance drainage around his greensites (with such pronounced pushed-up greens, you'd think L/M courses would have puddles around the base of those greens. But I've never seen drainage issues at L/M courses).

Tom:

It is truly a mystery where Langford found some of the fill for such pronounced, pushed-up greens. The Forse displacement theory makes sense for many of the L/M holes I've seen, but a few of them -- notably the one pictured here from Lawsonia (the boxcar hole, the par 3 7th, so named because it's rumored the green was built-up with the help of a buried train boxcar) and the 2nd green at West Bend, which I swear has a two-story drop-off on the backside -- defy that theory.

The most amazing thing at the 7th at West Bend, to my mind, is how Langford found the darn thing. It is quite literally cut out entirely from an old-growth hardwood forest. I've always thought it's one thing to visualize a hole that's relatively free of features, and imposing features such as fairways, traps, greensites and whatnot on it. It's another thing entirely to see a golf hole in the middle of a forest.

TEPaul

Re:A different hole to discuss
« Reply #24 on: December 26, 2007, 07:06:35 PM »
"Tom:
It is truly a mystery where Langford found some of the fill for such pronounced, pushed-up greens."

Phil:

Oh, I don't know about that.

After-all who ever in the past would've even thought to look for construction cuts around greens to create fill except wackos like us?

I bet I could find those construction cuts around all those Langford/Moreau propped up greens no more than maybe 40-50 yards away.

It's not exactly looking for what seems to be cuts. The trick is first finding what is undeniably pre-existing natural grades around old greens first and then just looking inward for grade changes that just don't really logicially make natural sense with those undeniably natural pre-exisiting grades.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 07:10:19 PM by TEPaul »