archies rating archies - Brauer on Smyers, Weed

[Jeff_Brauer]

There was a thread a few days ago called "architects ranking architects" that caught my eye.  I was going to run these as separate threads, but I didn't like the sound of "Brauer on weed," so I combine them!

In fact, archies do rate archies, in that the "Golf Course News" has annually ranked architects, and that is based, in part, at least, on a poll of architects.  Naturally, Fazio wins, but for the record, I always vote for some one else, just because there is lots of good work out there, and obviously, Tom can win w/o my vote.

Anyway, not to tell you the butler did it, but I wouldn't post a negative or mediocre ranking on my fellow architects, so you know both will get "two thumbs up".

Before getting to the meat of the subject, I'll tell you that I'm on spring break, visiting my mother in Ohio and my wife's folks in Tampa.  I guess I can only take so much "family togetherness", but am always looking to further my education in architecture.  In Detroit, Jeff Mingay was kind enough to set up walking tours of Franklin Hills and Oakland Hills )North and South) and we had a great time, seeing as much of all three courses as possible given the fact our eyes were frozen shut.  The cold weather, and Jeff's unfortunate choice of headgear (a Detroit Red Wings cap!) were the only things that spoiled the day for this Texan/Dallas Stars fan!  I learned lots from the courses, and my discussions with Jeff.  He has great thoughts on how fairway contours can affect play and design more than fairway bunkers, which he articulated well.  He's not nearlythe wild eyed fanatic I normally picture from his posts!

I am in Florida now, and have played Weed's TPC of Tampa, and toured Smyers Old Memorial.

AT TPC,  I noticed that as a tour course, much of the design was really in the internal green contours.  As Larry Nelson always told me - amateurs look at greenside hazards planning the approach, while tour pros look at the green contour.  Many of the bunkers were placed well back of the green for show, but were hard to get in - for tour pro or hacker.  

The greens had many "carry away" swales off the side and back. Getting at certain pins required great accuracy.  it did appear that most required "sticking it" except for the ninth, which has a narrow front pin position, and fall away contours to get to the rest of the green.

I was actually surprized, given the tour level clientele, that some of the greens were a bit disguised.  The few tour pros I know want it "to lay out like a road map" and for the most part it does, with some wrinkles.

All in all, lots of good ideas there, and a fun course to play.  It even had more than a few center bunkers in the fairway, which seemed to thwart pure distance.

However, I guess this group would be even more impressed with Steve Smyer's Old Memorial.  I have only played Steve's Southern Dunes, but Old Mem. is an exclusive, walking only club, with caddies (many who are tour pros wannabes.)
He put even more ground game features in than I saw at SD.  I doubt there is an architect who does it better than Steve.  

It starts on the first hole, which if fairly long (yardage book is in bedroom with a sleeping wife right now, so I must guess a bit)  It has a fall away green to the back right corner, and you must carry a bunker on the front left to get on.

The fourth is a long par three with reverse redan features, and the 11th is a true redan, and the ball really moves right to left.  It also has a blind bunker (one of several around greens) just beyond the redan slope to catch the overplay.

The fifth is a long 4, and the approach should land near a cluster of bunkers 20 yards short and right to run down a reverse slope to the green.

The tenth has kick in banks right and left.  The center of the green has an open fairway approach, but the upslope is steepest there - steep enough to reject all but the hardest running shots.  In other words, the only play you can't make, is to hit it right at the green - you really should go right or left to get to the middle of the surface.

The 12th is a 597 yard , dogleg left par 5, with a short cut fairway in an island of sand that allows you to easily reach it in two.  If coming in from that direction, the contours funnel your ball to the green, provided it clears the large bunker.  The right side of that funnel is a gentle mound that partially blinds the green from the safe route.  That mound, and the front right of the green that falls sharply to the fairway make for a tricky third.

13 is driveable 4, and again, the contours funnel a perfect shot to the green, while kicking the shot that is off line down to a fairway chipping area, where you must lob up to a small green falling away from you.  8 is also a driveable 4, with double greens similar to 8 at Pine Valley.  One green is smaller, the other larger with more contour to play differently.

15 has a similar "valley of sin", even more pronounced than the false front on 12.

16 is a 520 par 5 with cross bunkers between landing areas (hells half acre on a smaller scale) and a crescent shaped green reminiscent of Pebble Beach 14, complete with steep bank that allows you to putt around the corner, should you not have a direct line.  I'm told that is the most controversial green, because the back left pin is only 39 feet deep, with no upslope, so holding is difficult.  In fact, the safer areas of the green probably could hold a little better.

There are also some internal green contours on a few holes - like 14 - which is kind of a reverse version of Seminole 6 - that really punish a shot to the safe side of the fairway. away from the carry bunkers  (Actually, this is the one area where I was even more impressed with Bobby Weed's contouring)

I have used almost all the ground features Steve used at one time or another, but I can't recall any design - classic or modern - where so much thought has gone into alternate routes of play, and ground game, especially to the green.

Any regrets on the course?  A few, too few to mention.....but

As with most of Steve's courses, there is a lot of visual intimidation in the form of lots of huge, deep bunkers.  It's possible he could have gotten the same great effects with a few less....

There is a consistent pattern, which means there is a reason, but its not clear to me exactly what it is, that the fairway bunkers are quite visible, the greenside bunkers often less so......The greens themselves are usually at ground level, but the many frontal bunkers (usually far from the surface) often blind the base of the pin.  Its very uncertain for the first time player, but of course, this is a club.

has anyone played this course?  I would be curious to know your thoughts, as I played TPC with a few well connected locals, and they didn't seem to rank it highly.  I didn't know if was that they didn't understand it, or if it was just too hard for them.

I would post some pix, but for a run down battery on the digital camera!  Oh yes, and the fact I haven't figured out posting yet!

However, my ranking for both courses is "two thumbs up" and an extra thumb for the ground game and "misdirection shots" required so often at Old Memorial.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Knowing Jeff wore a Red Wings fan makes me have to reconsider the friends I keep.

Sounds like a whirlwind trip Jeff.  Since you have this on the brain.  What are your thoughts of how the shot values compared from the two Michigan courses to the two Florida courses?  

When the archies rate Fazio as #1, why is that?  Are these rankings based on design or overall result?  I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Go Leafs Go!!

[TEPaul]

JeffB;

Thanks for the comprehensive rating or descriptive post of "other" architects--I wish more would do it.

The courses you describe sound really interesting, the Smyers one sounds to have tons of good stuff going for it and going on on the course.

I'm particularly interested in what you said about the way Smyers appears to handle the "visuals" of tee shot bunkering vs approach shot bunkering! From the sound of what you say it would seem he might be going for some MacKenzie "visual intimidation" on the tee shots (looks harder than it actually is) and some of the Ross style "put the sophisticated meat of it at the approach shot end" (is harder than it looks).

As for Jeff Mingay not being the wild eyed fanatic you pictured from his posts--he's not--very thoughtful and knowlegeable guy!

Most of us aren't of the wild eyed fanatic category you picture from our posts when you meet us.

There are a few other categories on here though. The rater category (Fine and Ward), the Goodale category (I'll let him fill in the description), the researcher category (Shackelford, MacWood, Childs, Bahto, D. White, B. Crosby, S. Sayers), the player category (Huckaby, Cirba), the frustrated criminal defense attorney category (P. Mucci),  the passion preservation category (belongs exclusively to TommyN), the indefinable category (JakaB) and of course the category reserved for our administrator Ran Morrissett (the bullseye accurate category no matter what he says).

If I left someone out I'll add their category later.

But thanks for the extremely descriptive post of some interesting sounding architecture--hope you do more of it.

[George Pazin]

Jeff -

I was interested in what you posted re: TPC at Tampa Bay. It's one of the few courses discussed on here that I've played, albeit 5 years ago when I was a virtual beginner golfer with no knowledge of GCA whatsoever. I don't honestly remember much in the way of internal contours within the greens. Even when I watch the senior event played there on the tube, it doesn't really refresh any distinct memories of the course, save the tons of water(WAY too much for a high handicap golfer, by the way, not that anyone who posts on here would probably care about that). The only greens I remember with interesting internal contour would probably be #7(I think) - the par 5 on the front where a second shot at the green would require a drive way left, or carrying a bunch of trees - #14 - the second par 5 on the back - & #16 - what I thought at the time was the most interesting hole on the course.

For insight as to how stupid some beginning golfers can be, my score dropped 23 strokes from morning round to afternoon round when my low handicap friend pointed out that I didn't have to try to play every hole like the pros, trying to hit shots I was clearly not capable of hitting. Also lost a lot fewer golf balls.

Tom Paul -

You forgot your own category - I would say "impassioned player & thinker."

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

I hate to speak for Jeff, but I think we both felt that most of Oaklands shot values were in the greens.  He said that RTJ simply extended Ross' original greens to add new pin positions, often at different levels.  I can't recall any greens with so much internal contour for the relatively small size.

Tee to green, there are many similar shots.  Most approaches are forced carries, with the exception of 14, which has a reverse slope green, similar to Ross 12th(?) at White Bear Yacht Club, and I presume others.

Most tee shots are placement shots between bunkers - also very similar in most cases.  We got a yardage book from the 96 Open, and I was surprized that most bunkers then were at the 265 mark.  The bunkers have just been redone, and I believe they have been moved out to at least 280, but I'm not sure.

Franklin Hills had a 298 yard par 4, with an 1800 SF; green on a very high plateau, almost surrounded by bunkers.  We were dissapointed to learn that Tom Gray, the superintendent uses Pro V I balls, teed high, to reach, and hold the green!  

Frankln Hills is apparently very much the same as Ross left it, with only a few bunkers split, to add a sewer line from the clubhouse.  Tom is restoring the bunkers to a sharper look, as they were softened for maintenance reasons in the sixties.

I have always thought of Ross as a pretty utilitarian architect - at least for the vast majority of the courses he built.  Tom had field notes from the Ross site visits, and similar to other Ross field notes I have seen, his emphasis was on practical construction.  He said things like "Balance cut and Fill", "Raise for vision", etc.  Oddly enough, the third, another par 3 on one of the high points of the property, was raised even higher, and Ross was apparently non-plussed that the green was not visible from the tee.

The shot values come from the small greens and relatively steep contours.  The approach is always delicate, and most greens did allow the run up shot, of course, and there were a few "misdirection" shots.  

To specifically answer your question, I think both the Weed and Smyers course gave more thought to various approach shot types and patterns than Ross. I think the individual shots are less repetitive.

TEPaul,

Jeff and I were joking - as I do with most GCA'ers that I meet, that we are MUCH nicer in person than our internet personnas!  No intent to categorize or slander anyone, just good fun.  I'll just lump the whole group together as architecture fans (which is a good thing) and leave it at that. Ben will have to join the special sub-category of hockey fans on this site, even if he is misguided   enough to root for a "soft" team like the Leafs, and even the Eastern conferece in general.  Neither has a chance in the playoffs - (as if my Stars do) West rules!

In fact, the point of the post was simply to point out some interesting modern architecture features in specific way.  I prefer that to the generalizing - often negative - that comes up from time to time here.

I would still be interested in hearing from anyone who has played to see if these features worked for them.  For that matter, Steve, where are you?

[George Pazin]

Jeff -

I thought I did address play as it pertained to TPC at Tampa Bay, but I guess I wasn't specific enough, so here goes attempt number 2.

Where was the internal green contouring on holes 1-6, 8-13, 15, 17 & 18? I'm not trying to be mean, I'm trying to remember. My recollection is that there was a great deal more contouring surrounding the greens than within the greens themselves. #7 provided the only double breaking putt I had, to my recollection, & #14's main source of interest at the green was a fairly dramatic slope from back shelf to front shelf. I did find this course fun to play, but I find just about any course fun. I found both courses at World Woods more fun, especially Pine Barrens, but, looking back, since I was a beginner then, I don't know how much of my enjoyment at PB was because I was blown away at the look.

Can't comment on any of Smyers work, haven't seen it, but John Conley seems to be the resident Florida Smyers expert. Any thoughts John?

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

Our first posts crossed, so I didn't think you weren't being specific, I just didn't see it.  Besides, I was really thinking of Old Memorial, at least in the sense that it would draw more discussion here.

I agree that the highly sculpted fairway grass chipping areas give the course its biggest distinguishing feature - althouth I have seen similar things at other TPC courses, including Weed's Vegas version.  Besides the ability to provide interesting chip shots, I know that TPC courses consider vision from surrounding mounds an equal design consideration to anything.  So, the drop off to chipping areas is driven at least as much by spectator concerns as design concerns.  If that weren't a factor, I'm sure Bobby would come up with a larger variety of green features, similar to his other courses.

Few of the green contours are dramatic, and I do recall the shelf on 14 affecting my short wedge.  But the greens do drain in three directions, where most greens drain only two.  I felt like the third swale would direct balls off the green if approached from the wrong angle to a particular pin.  Obviously, playing once, I wasn't in a position to test that theory.  In fact, I was a "perfect guest" leaving no traces of ball marks on most of the greens!

The other dramatic contours were on 9, where there was a narrow front pin, and then the middle of the green widened out to the left and also fell off that direction, allowing you to trickle the ball down to the other pins.

Many other greens, like the par 3 second had subtle little shelves - in this case back right - with a swale just short or long that had to be carried or the slope would direct the shot off the green.  Most other greens had some edge rolls that I think tour pros would use to feed the ball down to nearby pin areas.  Owing to a nearly complete loss of touch, I have to say that that remains a personal theory, rather than proven fact!  If you have seen the tourney, you may know better than I.

The 8th had a pretty good "spike" slope crossing the green from the left. 12 (a short par 5) had almost a flat green, making hitting it in two a real challenge to hold.  It also contrasted nicely with the other more rolling greens.  BTW, I hit but didn't hold both this and 6, where I did have to go over those trees.

I was surpised at the contour for TPC greens.  When they decided to put a senior event at Opryland,  I was consulted, and the tour said they liked greens at 2% slopes, with a max. of 2.5% - in other words flat.  TPC Tampa Bay has, from my semi trained eye sllopes up to the typically maximum practicle for fast green speeds of 3%, and parts of the green are even more.  Even at normal speeds, there were a few putts that either had to climb an intermediate hill, or stop before one to avoid getting away from me (and don't ask me how I know that, thank you)

Anyway, I hope that answers your questions.