For Mike, can you talk a little bit about the Par 5 openers at both KC and GW. Both to me are great ways to introduce the player to the round. They both seem to be like mirror opposites to me. Do you like the idea of a Par 5 start, or was that just what was there and the best way to get from point A-B?
I know you don't really like to think about the qualities of one individual hole, but rather in a strech of holes. For each course do you have a favorite stretch of holes or an individual hole where you can really say this one is my favorite? How about a favorite green? Favorite approach?
Joe H and I had a pretty good discussion about the changes to number 17, what are your thoughts on how it turned out? Can you forsee any other tweaks to the current hole? Or other holes in the near future?
Can you comment on how important, or rather how great it is to have a guy like Dan Lucas who was there from start to finish and is still there today. What kind of synergy does that create and how is it different from maybe other projects you've done and this isn't the case?
Nev,
Just came across this and noticed you never got an answer . . . sorry about that – count it as a late gift or early present for Christmas!
The par 5 openers just worked out that way – they were the best fit hole for the whole routing and both have room to let the golfer air it out at the start. I like a par 5 opener to let players get going with three shots but the main thing is for the hole to fit the course, routing, and land. They are not impossible to play, but look more difficult than they really play. Although both are reachable by big hitters (KC with 6 irons, GW with an 8-iron!), most of us will play 3 shots to them. The bigness of the holes are complemented by their big contour rolls and “fit” the holes. The greens are very different, with KC’s a gathering site and the big level change, while GW’s flat crown can be a problem for aggressive recovery shots that roll off the other side.
Favorites are too difficult to choose – like your favorite child, you love them all for different reasons. But, that said, at KC, I am particularly fond of the “South 40” sequence of #2-7T because you get 5 great holes where they are all different, constantly changing angles and plays, you see each and every hole from a variety of vantage points, and then on 7T, you get one last look at a portion of every hole on the front nine before descending down to the landing area where a blind/semi-blind 2nd shot awaits you – it is a transformation from total openness to seclusion. At GW, I think the sequence of 11-15 is the best stretch of pure golf on the property but 6-9 probably takes the cake when you think about the terrain, rock walls, views, and quality golf shots and choices you have to make. Cutting down to individual greens or approaches is too tough, although maybe on threat of death you could get me to do it!?!
Regarding KC #17, I am pleased with the results but wish we had opened the back nine up more during construction, for continuity and grass development. There is a new back tee going in just for big hitters like you, Nev – it will add about 25 yards to the hole. In the future, maybe the forward tees will move over to the left a bit more for a better angle/choice on which side to take on the drive – that was planned for when we did the expansion but not carried out. Other tweaks right now are a new forward tee on #7 that is a bit shorter and down the slope, giving a better angle to the fairway and they don’t have to carry the big drop in front. Other stuff will really just be tree management (they do grow!) to keep the openness of the course.
Having Dan Lucas at Kingsley is one of the reasons the course is as good as it is. Having him (or other superintendents) build the course with me is the best way to ingrain in them the philosophy that is trying to be imparted to a course. I learn from them and talk with supers about what is happening and we work together to get a course that is carrying out those elements that we are building but also takes into account the maintenance and sustainability of the project long term. I have been fortunate to have that relationship at most of my projects: Dan at KC, Craig Moore at GW worked at KC during construction and under Dan for many years plus was at GW maintaining the original Langford course while we built GW, Kris Shumaker was instrumental in the design and construction of Pilgrim’s Run and Diamond Springs – he is now maintaining the Mines for my client there, Ken Hunt was Kris’ asst at PR and is still there today. This continuity is great for the courses and the supers all call if they have questions, we ride around to check out issues they are having, etc. and that keeps things in place and helps me learn more and apply that to future work.
Best,
Mike