West Bend hole 14 - Thanks Kye Goalby

[Mike McGuire]

West Bend is doing a partial remodel of #14. Should be done by the end of September. Ill post images of the progress as we go.


IMG_3285.JPG by macadoo3, on Flickr

[Phil McDade]

Mike:

8 more to go!

I assume Langford did plans for 18 holes?

[Mike McGuire]

Mike:

8 more to go!

I assume Langford did plans for 18 holes?

Phil

Yes, Langford did have a plan for 18 holes. Nine were built in 1930. When the club got around to build the back nine in 1960 they ignored the Langford routing.

The existing back nine was actually routed backwards from the Langford plan.

[Dan Moore]

Mike,

Thanks.  What is the plan on how to "channel Langford" on this hole.  Is it Prichard's plan? 

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, what is the yardage of the hole.   Is the tree removal the only thing that was done.  That is all that appears to be done from the two photos.  It seems to me if the idea would be to channel Langford, the simple solution would be to put in a grass or sand gull wing carry right side bias bunker on the diagonal, starting at about 170yards and covering a carry of about 200 for member tees, and maybe 190-220 from back tees.   I doubt it would be all that costly to bring in fill to do that, lord knows there are enough cut and dirt moving project along our roads lately!   The bigger challenge would be evaluating how the green is designed and situated.  I only saw this hole once more than a decade ago and that was not playing, just a tour with one of your members.  If the desire to channel Langford is serious, then it seems to me that relating new Langfordesque green contouring and perhaps raising to Langfordlike heights to the approach strategy to consider also the gull wing bunker demands would be the ideal approach of remodeling to undertake. 

Maybe if a serious effort is undertaken in this manner, on this one hole, then members would see that channeling Langford to redo the entire Art Hill - Gill (?) work on that 9 holes, would be a good thing to long term plan to do.

Good luck with that. 

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I thought it was the same picture posted twice by accident?
Is that not the case, RJ I dont see any tree removal on the second photo, just a slightly different angle isnt it?
That been said as a memebr of a Langford /Moreau myself, I love your ideas for the hole.

[RJ_Daley]

M W-P, did you pic on the photo and scroll to the right?  The photo, like many of Mark Saltzman's are so big that one has to scroll to see it all.  

[Mike McGuire]

Took out about 10-15  trees or so up the right side. The ones in the 2nd photo under the arrow are now gone.

We will be installing fairway bunkers left and right as envisioned by Ron Prichard.

The left bunker will be a little closer to the tee, encouraging a carry up the left side for the  better angle.

Expanding the fairway to the right over the water and left over the bunker.

Adding onto back tee.

No money to rebuild the green a it further up so we are just going to redo the green side bunker to look like Langford.




west bend country club - Google Maps by macadoo3, on Flickr

Ron Prichard drawing


WBCC long range plan #2 keynote by macadoo3, on Flickr

[RJ_Daley]

IMHO, that Pritchard drawing doesn't channel Langford at all.   I'm assuming that the distance to the proposed back tee to the turning point is 260.  Why is he placing an uncharacteristic shaped bunker on the left side?  As for the diagonal carry, perhaps the pond shore diagonal to the line of play is enough to channel most of Langford's preferred tee shots.  Or maybe only a modest grass diagonal mound would be sufficient.  But I think the whole idea of most of the FW bunkers or grass bunkers on diagonal or en echlon are to challenge the player to take on the longer carry for a better/shorter shot at a green.  I don't thing L&M placed another constricting bunker to the left in the safer tee ball line of play like Pritchard has here, nor such a front bunker in the potential run up apron.  I think L&M would be more likely to place the other bunker by the green back left. 

Remind me again what L&M remodel or resto Pritchard has done.  It seems in our area Mr. Esser is more in tune with the L&M work, and of course without question Forse and Nagle have the credentials. 

I wondered and hesitated a bit before asking that, as it may not be my place to say.  But then again, you did post and I assume want opinions, of which I have this one, amatuerish as it may be....

[Mike McGuire]

Remind me again what L&M remodel or resto Pritchard has done.  

Skokie. Thought by Ran at one point to be one of the best restorations ever.


I wondered and hesitated a bit before asking that, as it may not be my place to say.  But then again, you did post and I assume want opinions, of which I have this one, amatuerish as it may be....

Yes, was hoping for opinions.  Hurry though - dirts getting moved starting Monday.

[Phil McDade]

Dick:

Langford did utilize the concept of "pinching bunkers," which appears somewhat to what Prichard is getting at here at WBend with those fairway bunkers.

Here are pinching bunkers at the 15th at Ozaukee, north of Milwaukee, a short (sub-500) par 5 where the bold golfer wanting to get home in two must tangle with the narrowing, rising up fairway; although these bunkers aren't in classic Langford style ala Lawsonia, their placement is original to the course plans, as shown in Langford's drawings in the Ozaukee clubhouse.



Also, Langford created a wonderful pinching fairway bunker/mound design at the 4th at Spring Valley, another par 5 where the pinching mounds/bunkers (bunkers designed but never built) come into play to create some blindness on the 2nd shot there.

So it's not an alien concept in the Langford canon. From the drawings and aerial, my guess is that Prichard wants to give some thought on the tee to the player unwilling to carry the pond by bailing left through placement of the left-fairway bunker, and also not simply allow the long hitter to rip one over the pond to shorten the distance between tee and green without some impediment (right fairway bunker). That strikes me as in keeping w/ a Langford design philosophy, given what also appears to be an effort to widen fairway corridors on this hole.

[PCCraig]

I wondered and hesitated a bit before asking that, as it may not be my place to say.  But then again, you did post and I assume want opinions, of which I have this one, amatuerish as it may be....

Yes, was hoping for opinions.  Hurry though - dirts getting moved starting Monday.

Mike,

Just my opinion, the two fairway bunkers look way too close together. In fact, I'm not entirely sure why the right FW bunker is needed? The player is already carrying the lake, leaving a shot which needs to carry a greenside bunker. Shouldn't the prevailing strategy be for the player to flirt with the bunker on the left in order to give himself the best angle to the green? Just seem like the landing area is being made too tight with too many bunkers.

[RJ_Daley]

Gents, the only L&M course I'm very familiar with that has a hole similar to this is 15th at Lawsonia.  Mike's 14th appears to be around 380tips. Lawsonia's is 380 also.  The pond at Laws., is obviously opposite, but it really doesn't appear that either should be much of a distraction to carry that.  But, the length and nature of the dog leg appear about equal.  And, there is that darn tree in both hole set-ups.  And, both holes are uphill.  Lawsonia has the native unguarded by a bunker, and the 14th WB has woods to allow the weaker player to try to play left, but not too left or too far...    I don't see the nature of a double penalty over on that  left side if the weaker player seeks a bit of safety from the tree and bunker up the right.  Really, with a more L&M style bunker by that tree that apparently is scheduled to go, this hole would really remind me of 15th Lawsonia.

I hope this works.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=43.829984,-89.005287&spn=0.002724,0.00736&t=h&z=17

Phil, I really don't see the resemblance on SV.  And, I didn't make it to Ozaukee on the L&M tour.  The only good example of pinching Bs at Lawsonia is 17th, which are only slightly offset, and most folk can drive over them these days.

[Phil McDade]

Dick:

Well, to be honest, I'd have to be on the ground to get a full flavor of the 14th at WBend -- I didn't walk the back nine during the L/M tour of a few years back.

I guess my main point is that I don't necessarily see the notion of bunkers on either side of the fairway, at relatively the same length off the tee or forcing the player to go "through" them, as being outside the norm of a Langford design. True, more of his bunker/mounding schemes seemed to give the player a choice of "tacking" around them vs. taking them on -- the 13th at Lawsonia is certainly an example of this, as the en echelon concept there allows the golfer to be bold, bolder and boldest with his play, while allowing plenty of width for the hack like me to take the more conservative -- but longer -- route. You see this all over the place at Lawsonia -- 18 being a prime example.

Yet the pinching bunkers are quite evident in his work -- at #4 at Spring Valley, you're left with little choice but to hit through the narrowed fairway there. Although not an onerous shot, it does give the golfer some pause, and the aggressive and long golfer has to confront those mounds off the tee if going for the green in two. You see this also at #2 at SV as well, and to some extent at #1, #14 , and #10 -- take a look at an aerial of SV and see how often his fairways are pinched by his mounding (obviously the impact is denuded by the lack of bunkering there, but he designed it w/ bunkers).

[J_ Crisham]

Remind me again what L&M remodel or resto Pritchard has done.  

Skokie. Thought by Ran at one point to be one of the best restorations ever.


I wondered and hesitated a bit before asking that, as it may not be my place to say.  But then again, you did post and I assume want opinions, of which I have this one, amatuerish as it may be....

Yes, was hoping for opinions.  Hurry though - dirts getting moved starting Monday.

Isn't Skokie a Ross design?

[Mike McGuire]

I wondered and hesitated a bit before asking that, as it may not be my place to say.  But then again, you did post and I assume want opinions, of which I have this one, amatuerish as it may be....

Yes, was hoping for opinions.  Hurry though - dirts getting moved starting Monday.

Mike,

Just my opinion, the two fairway bunkers look way too close together. In fact, I'm not entirely sure why the right FW bunker is needed? The player is already carrying the lake, leaving a shot which needs to carry a greenside bunker. Shouldn't the prevailing strategy be for the player to flirt with the bunker on the left in order to give himself the best angle to the green? Just seem like the landing area is being made too tight with too many bunkers.

Pat

I agree with you the left bunker is the key to the best angle, especially when the green side bunker gets lowered 3 ft to give a more intimidating look.  If the left bunker is too far out and everyone lays up its a loser. Ideally it should be a decision wether to go by it or not.

The right bunker is meant  to stop bombers from going at the green, we keep the rough short, and would be a bogey bunker for the 3 shotter.

Also the right bunker would be a good visual to replace the trees.

Thanks for the input. Keep it coming. We had a big meeting tonight on site and have some differences. Not too late to make a difference GCA ers!

[Mike McGuire]

Phil McDade

Good analysis and new points.

Thank you.

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, can you tell us what the yardage is on the drawing you posted from back tee to turning point?

It looks like either David Gill or Art Hill graded this hole by pushing dirt at the upper corner where the left bunker is proposed to go.  Thus, I assume that past that bunker is a significant drop into the woods and road OB behind.  I just see that is a double hazard that overly penalizes a decent shot that one would assume is the better strategy to gain a better angle into the green, including your information that the greenside bunker is to be lowered 3ft.   As you have said, you keep your rough relatively short, which seems it would increase that sort of run too far into the bunker or brush/woods behind that.  So, if the turning point is 250 from the back tee, it looks about like that is also about the distance to the proposed bunker edge there on the left. 

Doesn't L&M consistently give that weaker player that sort of shorter tee ball with less drama side, and then give them the challenge of the longer approach?  Meanwhile, doesn't he challenge the stronger player with a substantially longer diagonal bunker covering a good piece of real estate starting almost at the point on the direct line to the turning point, and sweeping away to the right, always challenging that stronger player that tries to cover the bee line shortest distance to the green?  If the stronger and longer player pulls it off, he gets the short iron hoist over the fronting bunker, but still has that to negotiate to prove he is the stronger player. 

Now, I'm thinking of #6 at Lawsonia, different because that is a down hill with speed slope over the right side gull wing bunker, but still a big advantage if you can flirt with the far right edges of that right side bunker on the bee-line.  Then, I'm thinking about the short par 4, 8th, again with the right side gull wing, and some nasty rough and a few trees up the right past the gull wing, to keep the stronger player honest.  But, the left side is wide open and if you are conservative and can hit a decent -9 iron, you have the favorable approach to the green, which also has a significant deep greenside bunker guarding that stronger player right side, and a false front up the line of play gut but otherwise open to heart of the green when played from the left side conservative or weaker player safe route. 

I just think the challenge and hazard that is proposed on your #14 with offset pinching bunkers on both sides with what seems like a double hazard on the assumed weaker player side, must be proportionate in challenge and penalty for whom the target golfer the archie is designing.

So, I think this may be Pritchard's design idea (which is fine if that is what he markets the work to be) but doesn't suggest or channel L&M to me. 

Actually, I wonder if your #7 is one aberration of L&M stereo typical in that it is the rare slight dog leg left rather than mostly all right turns (to the right handed player).  There on 7, one might make the case of grass bunkers on a pinched offset in LZ, although I think most people can hit the distance well over the left side gull wing, and a little past the right side grass bunker mound.  7 is a great L&M hole IMO. 

[PCCraig]

I wondered and hesitated a bit before asking that, as it may not be my place to say.  But then again, you did post and I assume want opinions, of which I have this one, amatuerish as it may be....

Yes, was hoping for opinions.  Hurry though - dirts getting moved starting Monday.

Mike,

Just my opinion, the two fairway bunkers look way too close together. In fact, I'm not entirely sure why the right FW bunker is needed? The player is already carrying the lake, leaving a shot which needs to carry a greenside bunker. Shouldn't the prevailing strategy be for the player to flirt with the bunker on the left in order to give himself the best angle to the green? Just seem like the landing area is being made too tight with too many bunkers.

Pat

I agree with you the left bunker is the key to the best angle, especially when the green side bunker gets lowered 3 ft to give a more intimidating look.  If the left bunker is too far out and everyone lays up its a loser. Ideally it should be a decision wether to go by it or not.

The right bunker is meant  to stop bombers from going at the green, we keep the rough short, and would be a bogey bunker for the 3 shotter.

Also the right bunker would be a good visual to replace the trees.

Thanks for the input. Keep it coming. We had a big meeting tonight on site and have some differences. Not too late to make a difference GCA ers!

Mike,

Thanks for your response. The replies since I posted have shed more light on the hole, which helps.

After hearing your points above, wouldn't it be interesting to move the left bunker further down the fairway, and the right bunker closer to the water? If the goal is to protect the hole from the bomber but keep it playable for the shorter hitter it might be more effective. You would then leave plenty of open space down the left side of the fairway off the tee away from the water for the shorter hitters, while still giving them a good angle at the green by going over/around the bunker in the fairway. If the bunkers are left to plan, the "smart" bomber will just hit it over the bunker on the left and give himself the best angle to the green. Also, if a player decides to take the shorter route to the hole down the right side, isn't facing the deep(er) greenside bunker head on risk enough? The right bunker as planned just seems to point the better player left.

Which way does the green slope?

[Phil McDade]

Pat and RJ:

I guess I'm just not seeing your concerns.

-- The tree clearance immediately in front of, and to the right of, the tee makes the pond (and I'd bet that it's an original pond; remember this is true kettle moraine country, with all kinds of glacially deposited features -- the 7th, 8th, 9th and 18th holes at WB all encircle a beautiful hardwood kame that is the course's most prominent natural feature) all the more obvious from the teeing ground. If you're water-phobic like me on a golf course, that turns your attention to the left on the tee.

-- The right side new bunker, as Mike suggests, is aimed squarely at the bomber capable of a long carry off the tee who aims to shorten as much as possible his route from tee to green. Although I'm not in the Fownesian camp of placing bunkers simply to thwart long hitters (see: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/oakmont/), I think there is merit in this bunker, if for no other reason it replaces a dozen or so trees as the impediment to taking that direct line. 1 more bunker > 12 trees is always a good equation in my book (and -- more to the point -- I'd bet Langford's as well). And there appears to be some room past the pond, but short of the bunker, on what will be expanded fairway, for the bold golfer who still plays predominately by line of sight.

-- There looks to be plenty of room (with the caveat that again I haven't walked these grounds) to slot a drive between the bunker left and the pond right, for the water-phobic, slicing golfer camp (i.e., me!). In some respects, I like the placement of the bunker left, as it gives me an aiming point for what is admittedly my natural game. (Maybe this is one demerit re. this bunker -- Langford often seems to confront the golfer with bold, obvious hazards to either take on or avoid, but seems to leave the golfer with some uncertainty about the safe direction of play.)

-- The bold golfer not wanting to go right still appears to have the option of playing aggressively left off the tee, and attempting to clear the bunker left, to leave an open pitch to a green that opens up from that side. Fairway expansion beyond the bunker is included for this tactical play.

-- Langford did ask players to play "through the bottleneck" on holes; it wasn't always about the option of bold hazards taken on or avoided through more conservative play. The bottlenecks of the 4th at SV and the 9th at Lawsonia come immediately to mind. See this 1992 aerial of Lawsonia from a Dan Moore thread that highlights Lawsonia's "lost bunkers" -- the yellow dots -- and how often he asked players to confront two closely aligned bunkers on either side of the fairway (notabley 16, where I'd argue the newly redone 14th at West Bend has some similarities):

One final note: Maybe Prichard does like pinching bunkers; here's a look at the 7th at Beverly, renovated to wide acclaim under Prichard's watch a few years ago, with a set of pinching bunkers aimed at the golfer seeking to get close to the green on this beefy par 5 with his second shot:

[Mike McGuire]

Mike,

Thanks for your response. The replies since I posted have shed more light on the hole, which helps.

After hearing your points above, wouldn't it be interesting to move the left bunker further down the fairway, and the right bunker closer to the water? If the goal is to protect the hole from the bomber but keep it playable for the shorter hitter it might be more effective. You would then leave plenty of open space down the left side of the fairway off the tee away from the water for the shorter hitters, while still giving them a good angle at the green by going over/around the bunker in the fairway. If the bunkers are left to plan, the "smart" bomber will just hit it over the bunker on the left and give himself the best angle to the green. Also, if a player decides to take the shorter route to the hole down the right side, isn't facing the deep(er) greenside bunker head on risk enough? The right bunker as planned just seems to point the better player left.

Which way does the green slope?


Wouldn't pushing the left bunker up the fairway force everyone to lay up? I think the idea is to temp the golfer to get past the left bunker to get the good angle with a shorter club.

Green slopes back right to front left. Without much undulation.

[Mike McGuire]

New view with the rest of the trees on the right side gone.



IMG_3296.JPG-1 by macadoo9, on Flickr

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, this last photo is taken slightly left of the tees, correct?  I am guessing that the two carts in the FW, one left and one right are in a way symbolic of two golfers dispersed drives and shows perhaps the width range one might consider for average players.  Taking those two as a guide, I tend to agree that a gullwing bunker further down the left, but a grass one, sited perhaps in front of that last birch and last red maple, not a sand one (which matches the grass ones you have on the real L&M 9) and a grass one shorter right just about 50 yards or more beyond the pond, maybe two en echlon, both on the same diagonal bias, suits both good strategy and channels L&M better than Pritchard's drawing. 

I continue to think the drawing does nothing to channel L&M.  Opening up the area where the trees were is fine.  New mowing lines demarking FW in that new LZ between the bunkers or grass ones will do a lot to redefine the hole. 

I don't have time to trial and error attempt to photo shop ontop of your picture today.  I haven't tried that in years and have to fiddle with it.  I hope I'm explaining my point, however. 

But, as I had mentioned, I don't personally think that Pritchard should make any claims he is channelling L&M on his drawing.  I would like to know what Dan Moore, Phil and other L&M fans think of that issue. 

[Mike McGuire]

Changed the (bad) thread title. No one is channeling anyone.

Just introducing some Langford-like features on our back nine.

This nine was designed by David Gill but built by a firm, I think, without much / any experience building golf holes.

[Dan Moore]

Jack,

Langford did a major remodel of the Ross course at Skokie in 1939 when the club obtained new land to the SW where fabulous long par 3 is located and sold some land to the far north and its fair to say its now a RossFord with greens and bunkers more in line with the Langford style than Ross which Prichard did a magnificent job restoring. 

Mike,

I see the shape of your hole as straighter but somewhat similar to the 14th at Lawsonia without the major natural feature of the hill in the landing area.  As seen on the Lawsonia aerial Phil posted on Lawsonia 14 a pond was added (on the left and well out of play) and a bunker well short left probably near the front tee is today has been lost .  The direct line to the green is guarded by a tree and bunker on the inside of the slight dogleg right. 



Like a lot of Langford's fairway bunkers the bunker left was more for visual framing purposes than anything strategic.  Langford frequently used bunkers on the inside of fairways and used the raised nature of the earthworks to provide some measure of blindness.  I assume the new bunkers will be the characteristic Langford style and scale earthwork that is featured on the West Bend front nine and at Lawsonia.  If anything I might pull the left side bunker closer to the tee to visually frame and balance the look of the hole.   If the fairway bunker on the right is of the scale of the fw bunker on WB #1, 3, 6 and 9 that would be a pretty cool way to add some Langford features while improving the playing characterictics of the hole.  I see Prichard proposed moving the green a little but that doesn't seem to be in the budget at this time but some new greenside bunkering tied in to the approach angles would go a long as well in imho.  Are you going to add wispy fescue to the right where the trees used to be.  Could the fairway have been shifted more to the left? 

WB #1


WB #6