Wisconsin golf tour: Erin Hills/Lawsonia/Blackwolf/Whistling (URLs fixed!)

[PCCraig]

Those new trees on 11 need to be taken down asap.

[Joe Bausch]

Those new trees on 11 need to be taken down asap.

This time I wonder if it is a combo reason for planting them:

1.  As before, to get the bogey golfer to not try to cut off too much on the 2nd shot, and

2.  Keeping more balls out of the river keeps few kayakers from getting hit!

[Andy Troeger]

I'm with Pat--the 11th doesn't need those silly trees on the inside by the river. I didn't think the old tree that preceeded them was needed either, but at least it had the charm of being older than the course itself. I still think its a very good hole--Blackwolf's biggest strength is its par fives.

The 10th is a neat par three, although another one with a misplaced cart path. The 12th has been a bit controversial because of the big benefit it provides to longer hitters, because if you have to go right it becomes a really tough hole. If you can get it out to the intended landing area its a great hole with options. My feeling is that the majority of golfers that belong on the blue or black tees should be able to make the carry, but I do wonder if the white tee shouldn't be on the other side of the water with no forced carry. Interesting hole in any case.

[Matt Kardash]

Phil,
I have never (slight exxageration) seen someone make more of an effort to detail why they dislike a course so much. Why so much venom? I know when I dislike something I do not feel so much passion to take all the effort you have to make my disdain clear to the world.

[PCCraig]

Phil,
I have never (slight exxageration) seen someone make more of an effort to detail why they dislike a course so much. Why so much venom? I know when I dislike something I do not feel so much passion to take all the effort you have to make my disdain clear to the world.

Matt:

I haven't read any of the "venom" that you have in Phil's posts. Generally speaking, Phil's comments are valid and I've enjoyed discussing the course with him. Blackwolf Run isn't everyone's cup of tea...which is ok!

[Matt Kardash]

Phil,
I have never (slight exxageration) seen someone make more of an effort to detail why they dislike a course so much. Why so much venom? I know when I dislike something I do not feel so much passion to take all the effort you have to make my disdain clear to the world.

Matt:

I haven't read any of the "venom" that you have in Phil's posts. Generally speaking, Phil's comments are valid and I've enjoyed discussing the course with him. Blackwolf Run isn't everyone's cup of tea...which is ok!

Yeah, in all fairnss ''venom'' was a bit strong. I guess I am just so lazy that I cannot understand when people make such efforts to say why they do not like something. haha

[Joe Bausch]

Time to get back to the River tour!

If you look at the scorecard before the round, you figure at stroke hole No 10, this par 3 must be tough for the bogey golfer.  And it is.



View from the green tee, which basically requires a long draw.



From short of the green:



From right of the green:



From the back edge of the green:



A little bit of a trek is needed to get to the 14th hole, which gets back to the clubhouse.



View from the green tees:



Approach shot view:



From just short of the green:



From just left of the green, looking back down the fairway:



The No. 18 stroke hole is the shorter par 4 15th.



View from the green tees:



Approach shot view:



From over the green:



I'll finish the back nine by tomorrow morning.

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

If you're looking for venom, try the Merion threads.

I'll admit it -- I hold the River Course to a higher standard than most any other course in Wisconsin. It's the one course that set off something of a mini-golf boom here in Wisconsin, leading to WStraits, Erin Hills, several majors and a Ryder Cup. I'm not sure any of those would've happened without Kohler taking the risk (and it was viewed as very risky at the time) to hire Dye and build the River course. Kohler's bold vision in building the course, and setting the green fees where he did (along with a very high level of service and upkeep and course maintenence, which does deserve mention), set a standard for this state.

And as I've said many times, the River Course in particular (moreso than any of the other three Kohler courses) sits on a wonderful, natural piece of land that encapsulates what you find in that part of the state -- rolling terrain, woods and rivers, captivating vistas. It's great golfing land.

I just think Dye tried too hard here. The course is often jarring to the eye. Rather than embracing natural features of the land, he junks it up with ski moguls, split fairways, and artificial constructs. And I get that it's supposed to be a tough course -- but golf even when tough should provide the player with a level of satisfaction and (most importantly) fun.

This hole, to me, epitomizes all that is wrong with Dye's work at the River Course -- the short par 4 14th (easily my least-favorite hole on the course):

An onerous carry from the tees, penal in all respects:


An approach shot that's hemmed in on all sides, with severe penalties for shots slightly off line (with the artificial pond lined by artificial rocks lining an entire side of the hole):


I find, literally, nothing appealing about this hole -- narrow, penal, forcing one-dimensional play out of the golfer, with artificial features propping up its difficulty:


Pat and others:

Yes, the land has some boldness to it -- but it's not crazy bold land, ala what you'd find at many other highly touted courses. From what I've seen, the land at the River Course has less bold movement in it, and less elevation change, than either Sand Hills or Ballyneal, and those two courses appear to blend into their surrounds in a much better way than the River. I don't think the land at the River is all the more dramatic than what you find at Milwaukee CC, and that to me is a much superior course.

[JNC Lyon]

I have not played Blackwolf Run, but that 13th hole looks downright silly.  It could be a very cool, heroic long par three over the river, but it seems those trees make the hole impossible for anyone but a scratch golfer.  They don't block the green, but they block the bailout area.  What is the option there other than to bomb a long iron and pray?  Additionally, those trees probably present a rules nightmare--I can't imagine how you could determine where a golf ball last crossed if it hit those trees and deflected into the water.

[Andy Troeger]

Phil,
I don't think #14 is great, but its also not one-dimensional. If the tee shot challenges the water the angle on the approach is far easier. If you bail left a bit its blind. I think your bias (I'm using the word since you admit to it) blinds you to the strategic quality of quite a few of the holes.  Its also short enough that the player has options of what club to hit and how agressive to be off the tee.

I'll give you a bone if you want to go after #13.    I think those trees are a bit ridiculous.

[Phil McDade]

Andy:

#13 bugs me a lot less than #14, because it's a really pretty good golf hole with just one bad (and easily fixable) problem -- the trees (I'd even clear some of those on the right side of the river bank, as the green is aligned to clearly encourage a draw). This, to me, is a solid, hard, demanding par 3 that embraces the natural features of the land Dye worked with -- a curving river -- with the need for one major but simple repair. And it has a very good green with some terrific movement.

So, my options on 14 are: bite off as much as I can, with the option of a watery death with a slight (not big, slight) miscalculation of my distance; or a bailout to a tiny (and it is tiny) patch of fairway with mounds galore if I slightly (not a lot, slightly) miscalculate how far I can hit it to the bailout area. And that blind second shot that comes with the bailout tee shot is to a (narrow!) green completely surrounded with trouble, and another watery death with a slight (not big, but slight) mis-directed iron shot, or slightly too much of a fade (because on the right side it's: green, two feet of fringe, a foot of rough angled toward the pond, then death.)

That, to me, isn't challenging architecture; it's bad architecture.

[Andy Troeger]

C'mon Phil--getting a bit carried away aren't we? The hole isn't really that narrow, and its 310 yards from the regular tees. I hit 3-iron, SW. Heck, I've heard some guys talk about trying to drive the green! And, the mounds on the left are a reasonable penalty for a bail out--unless they've stopped mowing them you can find the ball and in most cases advance the ball 100 yards (which is all you'd have left give or take) more often than not. At worst its a chip out and a pitch to the green. It can be played for a relatively easy 4-5 depending on your ability, but if you want to make 3 you take your chances with 6+.

I do agree with your comments on #13. The trees are the only problem, but they're still there.

[Matt Kardash]

I agree with Andy, I think Phil is being overly critical of 14. If you say you don't like it because you don't like the aesthetic quality of the hole then that is your business, and your taste. The hole has strategy and is not one dimensional. Are you saying that any hole where a tee shot on the correct side gives the golfer an edge is a lack of strategy? MOST golf holes employ this very principle! The way you describe the unfair severness of the green and its surroundings makes it seem like the golfer is attacking the hole from 200+ yards....it's essentially a pitch to the green with option for driving it. I do not see your logic.

Also, i have never heard of an "artificial rock" before! 

[Matt Kardash]

.

[Phil McDade]

Andy:

The ability to score a 3, vs. a 4 or a 5 or a 6 (on any given hole), doesn't matter as much to me as the hole's merits as a piece of architecture. I've seen terrific holes that have the same scoring range, and lesser holes architecturally (well, not that many ) that are more difficult than this one. Just because a hole can yield a certain scoring range doesn't necessarily make it a good piece of golf architecture.

[Andy Troeger]

Phil,
That's great, but you're not even looking for architecture because you're so worried about looking for anything you can label "artificial." The point of the numbers is to point out the strategy and risk/reward nature of the hole. If it were 480 yards and the same width I think you'd have a point. At 310 I think its got plenty of width to be reasonable. Its not hemmed in on both sides--just because the left isn't level doesn't make it a disaster. 

I don't think its a great hole--the reward of being close to the water isn't worth the risk.

[Phil McDade]

Andy:

Parts of Langford's multiple-option short par 4 8th at Lawsonia are "artificial" as well -- the built-up green, surrounded by man-made bunkers (quite deep), the angular mounding and sandtrap that confront the golfer on the tee. But Langford expertly uses the lay of the land to create a tee shot that provides both multiple options on how to play it, and a challenge for the golfer.

Here's what the golfer sees on the tee at the 8th at Lawsonia -- the green is center-right of the picture, with the flag visible. The aggressive golfer can certainly have a go at the green -- it plays @ 330 yds, and the green is offset right from the fairway, so that distance can be shortened. But lots of trouble awaits the golfer on the direct line between tee and green. The less-aggressive golfer may think the proper play is a fade over the bunker right to set up a short approach from the right side of the fairway, and it's an OK strategy. The experienced Lawsonia golfer, meanwhile, may take an aggressive line straight over the left mound, away from the line of charm.



Here's the result for the tee shot on a line directly left over the mound:

Note how the tee shot left -- sort of the opposite of where one might aim based on the visuals from the tee -- yields the better approach shot, to a wide part of the fairway (completely hidden off the tee), to a much more open green. It's still a short pitch from the right side of the fairway (near the player on the right), but notice how that shot has to take on the deep bunker fronting the green. The aggressive player may have to contend with the native grasses (semi-dormant in this photo) usually found between the straight visual line tee-to-green.

3 is certainly possible here. But so is 6, because of the dicey little approach shot to one of Lawsonia's smallest greens, and the challenge of Langford's deep bunkering. A very good short par 4 with options, and a clearly superior piece of architecture compared to the River Course's 14th.

Matt -- the rocks lining the pond on both #4 and #14 are visually jarring and not appealing. I much prefer Dye's use of the natural river bank on #9 and #13.

The issue to me isn't whether something is artificial or not -- all golf courses, including the ancient ones of Scotland, have man-made features. The issue is whether the man-made features -- be they mounds, bunkers, water hazards, greens and green surrounds -- blended with the natural terrain given the architect , "fit," and lend themselves to both playability, a solid test of one's game, and visual pleasure (for lack of a better term). It does, for me (in spades) at Lawsonia, in part because of Langford and Moreau's sophisticated construction methods. It doesn't, for me, at the River Course.

[Andy Troeger]

Phil,
I'm not really that worried about your comments about the look of these courses and the tie-in, etc. I get that, its just not particularly important to me. Golf courses IMO aren't natural in the first place--its a field of play for a game/sport. The look/aesthetics of a course is important, but its so personalized that we could debate all day without really gaining any ground. You can give extra points to Lawsonia for using the lay of the land and the whole "fit" thing which is way too subjective for me. BUT, Lawsonia gets a lot of points just for being a good strategic course that's fun to play. Lawsonia is also more playable for the mediocre golfer--its wider and the hazards are usually more forgiving. Its also less challenging for the better golfer--although not a pushover. I just don't think there's any question that a scratch player wouldn't score better (perhaps significantly so) at Lawsonia than Blackwolf. No value judgment intended--just a statement. They are hard courses to compare evenly because they are so very different.

The places where I am trying to challenge your comments are where you challenge the "architecture" at Blackwolf when you're mainly criticizing the look.  You've done that at least a few times on holes that are quite strategic and interesting to play. The 14th is not one-dimensional and provides room to play for a short par four. I would agree that the 8th at Lawsonia is a better hole, because it does provide better recovery than the big pond at Blackwolf on the right. I'd also guess its far easier on average even with the small green. You're also comparing one of the best holes at Lawsonia IMO to a hole that probably wouldn't make my top half at Blackwolf. Its still above average overall IMO--far from being one of the worst holes I've ever seen.

[Kalen Braley]

Is it just me, or is that an awful lot of dogleg rights on that course with water on the right.

Hell even some of the par 3s are dogleg rights!! 

[Matt Kardash]

Matt -- the rocks lining the pond on both #4 and #14 are visually jarring and not appealing. I much prefer Dye's use of the natural river bank on #9 and #13.

The issue to me isn't whether something is artificial or not -- all golf courses, including the ancient ones of Scotland, have man-made features. The issue is whether the man-made features -- be they mounds, bunkers, water hazards, greens and green surrounds -- blended with the natural terrain given the architect , "fit," and lend themselves to both playability, a solid test of one's game, and visual pleasure (for lack of a better term). It does, for me (in spades) at Lawsonia, in part because of Langford and Moreau's sophisticated construction methods. It doesn't, for me, at the River Course.

That's fine Phil. Like I said, aesthetics are always up for debate. I like the aesthetics of both the River course and Lawsonia in their own way. But, as was said above, I do think you might be letting your hatred for the visuals at the River course negatively affect your perception of the strategy. I couldn't blame you for that, when I do not like the way a course looks I have a hard time giving it a fair shake.

[Andy Troeger]

Kalen,
Personally I think #13 is a dogleg left par three. #16 and #18 also bend left. You are correct though in that a lot of holes move right, and there's definitely a lot of water on the course in general, almost always on the inside of doglegs except #5.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,
Personally I think #13 is a dogleg left par three. #16 and #18 also bend left. You are correct though in that a lot of holes move right, and there's definitely a lot of water on the course in general, almost always on the inside of doglegs except #5.

Andy,

I think its time for a new prescription:   

[Matt Kardash]

Phil,
Also, I just do not believe you would be so critical of the 14th if the pond were replaced with, let's say, the sheboygan river. I really have a hard time believing that suddenly you would be all over this hole for poor strategy.

[Carl Nichols]

Phil-
I'm mostly with you here.  I played the original course last summer, where you play 4 and 14 from this course back-to-back.  I thoughT they were overly artificial and completely out of character with the rest of the course (which is generally artificial in a different way).  But I also agree with Andy that 14 has some architectural merit -- it has plenty of room for its length (one should have to be reasonably precise with a five iron layup), and there's nothing wrong with testing a short iron approach.

I do think that 16 is a great par 5......

[Andy Troeger]

Kalen,
No, you need to think about the way the hole plays. The white and short tees are way over to the left so that fairway is really for them. From the back tee you can either hit it high or you can play a hook. Or you could try to hit 7-iron into the fairway--that doesn't leave an especially easy shot.