Changes to Maxwell's design at Iowa State

[John_McMillan]

A thread below discussed issues of golf design and safety.  Two holes at Perry Maxwell's design at Iowa State University (Veenker Memorial) were changed in the 1980's to address golfers slicing into traffic on a nearby street.  The image below shows the current routing, and the 2 holes that compromised the original routing at ISU.



The sixth hole was a par-5 which played along the south boundry of the golf course.  Unfortunatley, the temptation of the hole to reach for a little extra distance to get to the green with one's second shot produced a great number of slices into the traffic on 13'th Street.  The redesign created a Par-3 for the first part of the old 6'th hole, then a walk of about 150 yards up to a new tee which plays down the rest of the 6'th hole, and into the old 7'th green.  The new holes solved the "traffic problem" and minimized the amount of new construction needed, but don't make a whole lot of sense golf-wise.  

This photo is taken from the current 7'th tee, which was just about at the landing area (probably a little ahead) for a drive on the old 6'th hole.  The old approach was a downhill, to a "reverse-bank" fairway, with a green at the bottom of the hill, and a creek far to the right of the green.



This photo is taken from the bottom of the hill, near the old 6'th green, and looks back towards where the previous photo was taken.



The problem with the re-design is that the options for the drive just don't work.  There are supposed to be 3 -
(i) play a drive short of both creeks, to about where the original green was located, which amounts to about bumping a 3-iron down the hill.
(ii) play to the right fairway area, where the old 7'th tee was located, which has to be about a 3-wood, since a driver will go too far
(iii) try to bust a driver over both creeks, which is possible when the hole is downwind.

The problem with option (ii) is that the area around that fairway is bordered by the creek, a couple trees, and a bunch of weeds.  Since the area is blind from the tee, it's not possible to tell whether your ball is lost, or in the creek.  In fact, there is a goofy local-rule on the ISU scorecard to cover this contingency -

"Ball in hazard on 7, 11 or 16.  If a ball may be unplayable or lost in the water hazard, a provisional ball may be played.  Player may then choose to play the original ball as it lies, or continue the provisional ball in play adding one penalty stroke, but may not proceed under the options of the water hazard rule."

The golf I played at ISU was casual enough that I never played the local rule (though I did lose some balls on the 7'th hole).  For the serious match, though, I can't see why anyone would want to proceed under the local rule.  If a golfer finds his ball in the water hazard, he's usually better off proceeding under that rule - so he might as well go up and look for it, since he can always walk back to the tee and re-play if that becomes necessary.  The local rule presumably is meant to speed play, but it's such a cost to the golfer, I can't imagine anyone wanting to use it.

Any arm-chair architects out there have better plans for how ISU could have changed their course to keep the balls out of 13'th street?

[Mike O'Neill]

John,

This is interesting stuff. I always thought #6 was a decent hole. It should have been narrow enough and short enough, going down hill and all, to have discouraged the driver. But it did not. And the traffic problem was significant there.

My question, not having played the new holes, is this: How does the new #6 and #7 compare to the old #6 and #7? The old #7 was a weak hole, with all due respect to the hole. I am not against short par 4's. But this was a true breather. And that is fine. If they managed to build a solid par three for the new #6, that might help to outweigh the weak new #7. I actually had considered a plan where the old #7 green would be replaced with a new green somehow. It has been so long since I was there, that I can't remember if there is enough room in the southeast corner of the property to reconfigure the old #7 and #8. I remember having figured that stretch out though. Better make a stop in Ames again soon. The memory is fading.

In the end, what would you say if I made the comment that they simply misplaced the new tees on the new #7? Sounds like they mismanaged the yardage a bit. I know they probably couldn't do much with those creeks. That place used to flood seriously on a regular basis. Maybe still does.

By the way, there are a few more holes out there where the layout kind of takes the driver out of your hand. I haven't seen them of course, but these changes may not be out of character for the golf course as a whole. Half the course seems like it is too short for today's big hitters. Thank goodness for the trees and creeks and the green complexes. It makes for a beautiful walk through the game.

Mike

[John_McMillan]

Mike,

I was at ISU in 1990, so I just saw the course in its new configuration.  Its hard for me to compare the new to the old, without having played the old.  What I do know is that the new 7'th plays really goofy, and it seems like the approach on the old 6'th would have been pretty cool.  How did you play the old 6'th hole?  To where did you drive?  What types of approach did you play into the green?

My problem with the new 7'th is that it's supposed to be a 3-option driving hole, but one option (going over all the creeks) is really tough, another option (going to the landing area on the right) is blind, and needs the local rule which no one plays, which leaves just the really easy third option, which is just a 3-iron or so bunt down the hill and short of the creeks.  

You are right - the course does flood out quite a bit, but that's Iowa.  The Skunk River, which runs through the course, is contained by 10 foot or so banks, which grow pretty heavily with vegetation when the river isn't flooding.  Looking for balls around this hazard can get time-consuming.  The way the 7'th hole usually plays is that one person in the group tries to go right, and catches one of the trees you have to drive over to get to that landing area.  The following discussion usually involves which tree (short or past the creek) one thinks the ball first hit, which caroom one thinks the ball took after that, and whether the ball is in the creek, short of the creek, over the creek, still up in a tree, or has escaped the earth's gravitational pull and is orbiting somewhere overhead.  Presumably, the local rule is to reduce time spent looking for balls that went into this blind area, and to provide an easy resolution for whether a ball is lost, or in a hazard.  However, the rule doesn't make much sense for serious competition, where no competitor would ever choose to use it.  I think the trees on the right side of #7 are the more serious problem than where the tees are located.  If you cleared out some of that vegetation, you could put a better balance between the 3 options.  The catch, though, is that I think they're relying on some of that vegetation to keep balls out of 13'th street.  

The bottom line of the hole is that sometimes really goofy things are done to golf courses in the name of safety.  I think ISU went after the changes that would cost the least, and could have spent a little more to preserve a golf course that plays better.

You're right as far as some holes taking a driver out of play.  Holes 2 and especially 3 are sucker holes for drivers off the tee.  You can't believe how far left you have to drive off the 3'rd tee - and how tempting it is to try to shave a drive to the right.  Fifteen can also play interesting - especially if it's downwind, it's possible to cut the dog-leg and drive the green.

[Mike O'Neill]

John,

The way I played the old #6 was to try to get the tee shot in the fairway and hit a second shot toward the bottom of the hill. I could not get there in two anyway, so there was little need to hit the ball 250 yards off the tee. Today, I have no doubt that I would hit 3 iron, 5 iron, wedge on that hole, give or take a club or two. The fairway was very narrow back in the middle 80's.

If they left some of the trees in to protect the street in the redesign, then they simply moved the traffic problem down the hill. Again, it could be that they need to move the tees up and make the new #7 hole a par 4. That might allow them to redict the angle of the tee shot to a landing area that clears all of the trouble and is not likely to land a ball on the street. It is just too difficult to tell from my chair here at the computer.

Wish I could be of more help.

Mike

[Ron_Whitten]

Actually, there have been a lot more changes to the Maxwell design than mentioned on this thread. I first played the golf course in 1970, when the little tiny clubhouse was way to the east, along with the first and 18th holes, on the far side of an elevated railroad bed. After playing the first, you crouched down and walked through a long tunnel (really just a 5 foot corrigated metal tube) beneath the tracks to reach the rest of the course. After 17, a long par 3, you went back through the tunnel to play the 18th, a very short par 4 with, as I recall, a wild Valley of Sin swale at the front of the green. I'd always felt that Perry Maxwell patterned the hole after the 18th at The Old Course. In the early 1980s, the city built a street over that old railroad roadbed, widening it and engulfing major parts of 1 and 18. so the clubhouse was moved to the south and a bunch of new holes were built.  By locals.  No match whatsoever with the quality of the Maxwell holes.  The old long sixth (Big Boy) was chopped into a par 3 and par 4 at that time. Had nothing to do with slicing into the road, since the road was just then being built. Unless they were anticipating slices into the new street?

Veenker was never a great course. Just 6,200 from the back tees, even back in Perry's day.  But it had some great holes and great greens.