[Jeff Goldman]

So I went back and found Tom Doak's suggested ground rules for detailed discussion of well-known courses.  They are below, in connection with the discussion of Chicago Golf Club:

Ground rules:  

"1.  I think it's fair to make some comparisons to the architect's other courses, as long as you say WHY the Redan at Chicago is better or worse than another.  (Holes-in-one do not count.)

2.  Everyone should include the hole they like the least and why.

3.  Everyone should say which hole they think is the most underrated and why.  (A vote on the best hole is much less interesting.)

4.  Everyone should feel free to discuss what they think has been changed for the worse and why; although at Chicago Golf Club, I think this category is nearly moot."

So, I'm picking Prairie Dunes to start the exercise.  It has been talked about a lot, but a lot of people here have played it and can comment (if you haven't and are anywhere in the Midwest, give me a buzz.  As with Olympia Fields, this is an open invitation to anyone who wants to come see it),

1. You can compare this course to others.  I would say that I am not aware of anything Press Maxwell did that could compare. Sort of like John Mackenzie making a lot of ok or not ok movies, but once, struck by lighting, he made The Long Good Friday.  From what I understand, PD gives you Maxwell's flavor better than any course (except maybe Crystal Downs, I guess).

2.  Hole I like least -- 5.  Hit it somewhere in the fairway, layup to a decent distance, try to hit the green.  I think it lacks real interest for mediocre players possessed by basically every other hole.  Also similar to 17 a bit but without the real thought that has to go into the layup (my best shot on 17 was a 135 yard 4-wood into the wind that finished 5 feet below the hole)

3.  Most underrated -- maybe 6?  not as talked about as others, but good movement in the fairway, choices about where to hit it (and whether you want to get near the green in 2, hit the green in 2, or hit the green somewhere specifically, all of which affect the tee ball.  The center bunker near the green seems unique to the course.

4.  Not sure anything has been changed for the worse.  There are some very cool ground contours on the sides now covered up by rough.  Exposing those would be great, but maybe not cheap to maintain.

One other question:  Does anyone think that there are actually too many elevated tee shots? I count 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 18.

[J_ Crisham]

Jeff,  The greens are all world class for starters. Not one of them looks like the other. Great mix of long and short par 4's. Only criticism is that 3 of the par 3's are uphill and are about the same difference. #6 is my favorite hole, #8 is by far the hardest for me. #11 is very underrated difficulty wise. #17 green is vicious. We had a great trip this past May with 12 guys- everyone had a hell of a time. Hope to see you there next year!

[Brandon Urban]

Jeff,

Love this topic.

1. You can compare this course to others: Unfortunately I have only played one other Maxwell, Topeka Country Club. The two course are on entirely different properties, but I think you see similarities in both. The greens that match the surrounds. Green sites benched into hillsides/dunes. Great use of rolling topography, which I imagine was much harder to do when Maxwell was building course than it is today.

2.  Hole I like least -- 16- This was tough because I don't really dislike any of the holes at PD. I guess I like 16 the least only because I have never really played it well. It's a tough second shot to green surface that is tough to see. The good number of three putts on this green don't help either

3.  Most underrated -- 13- I love the drive over the dune on the left and the approach to the green is one of my favorites on the course. You will most likely have a wedge in hand, but if the pin is back left on the portion of the green that is about the size of a volkswagon hood it gets a little dicey.

4.  Not sure anything has been changed for the worse: I agree with Jeff here. The new dune built behind 7 is fanatstic. The tees that have been added over the years also fit in really well. The greens, for the most part have been untouched.

I really don't mind the elevated tee shots. They fit in with the property. It would have been tough to route a course through those dunes and not have a good number of them.

[Sean Leary]

So I went back and found Tom Doak's suggested ground rules for detailed discussion of well-known courses.  They are below, in connection with the discussion of Chicago Golf Club:

Ground rules:  

"1.  I think it's fair to make some comparisons to the architect's other courses, as long as you say WHY the Redan at Chicago is better or worse than another.  (Holes-in-one do not count.) I have not played any other Msxwells, although I have played some that he has worked on

2.  Everyone should include the hole they like the least and why. 5, for similar reasons as Jeff. I find 9 to be harder than 8, especially from the back tees.

3.  Everyone should say which hole they think is the most underrated and why.  (A vote on the best hole is much less interesting.) 6 for sure. My favorite hole. Brilliant green, and a counter intuitive tee shot where the outside of the dogleg give the best angle

4.  Everyone should feel free to discuss what they think has been changed for the worse and why; although at Chicago Golf Club, I think this category is nearly moot." In looking at the old pictures, it seems like the well talked about native was  less severe. A couple of holes could have fairways widened to original widths for sure, although I believe that the narrowed fairways helps the average golfer because it helps keep shots in play. I also would to see some more gunsch areas cleared in some landing areas that would improve the playability of the course for the average player, but wouldn't really affect the really good player

As far as elevated tee shots, I say no. But there probably are too many right to left tee shots

[Mark Saltzman]

1. You can compare this course to others.  I would say that I am not aware of anything Press Maxwell did that could compare. Sort of like John Mackenzie making a lot of ok or not ok movies, but once, struck by lighting, he made The Long Good Friday.  From what I understand, PD gives you Maxwell's flavor better than any course (except maybe Crystal Downs, I guess).

Jeff, to be honest, I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'PD gives you Maxwell's flavor better than any other course.'  I think it is very fair to say that the original Perry Maxwell holes are the best 9 holes he designed.  Ever.  But his flavor?  I actually think Prairie Dunes is a departure from the majority of what Maxwell designed, and certainly the land at Prairie Dunes is different than the land at the majority (all?) of his other courses.  Yes, you do see a few of his traits... greens tucked into the side of a hill, reverse-doglegs (as  Sean mentions, like hole 6), and the ability to design internal contours that while not tying in effortlessly to the surrounds, are fun and scary to putt, and which encourage decision-making all the way back to the tee.

4.  Not sure anything has been changed for the worse.  There are some very cool ground contours on the sides now covered up by rough.  Exposing those would be great, but maybe not cheap to maintain.

The loss of the original tee on 17, maybe?  Would have been a very cool tee shot over the corner of the dunes on the righ.

[JC Jones]

Mark,

Do you mean that the 9 holes Perry Maxwell did at PD are the best 9 holes he designed as in a 9 hole set or as in the 9 individual holes?  If the latter, are you saying that 13 at Crystal Downs or 7 at Old Town would not make the list of the 9 best holes Perry Maxwell has designed?

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Based on my limited play (less than 5X), here are my thoughts…

1. You can compare this course to others. I’ve played Crystal Downs and Prairie Dunes, and Omaha CC, which I think claims some Maxwell lineage?  Perry Maxwell’s original nine at PD are awesome… the nine built by Press are very good as well, especially #4 (which is a longer version of #2) and #11 (that little bump at the front of the green is superb), but the flow, the use of the land, the green sites on the original nine are remarkable.  The greens at PD aren't quite as fierce as those that i experienced at CD... maybe it was a maintenance thing.  As i was told more than once when my chip or putt slid by the hole by 10+ feet... you've been "crystallized"!

2. Hole I like least -- 12. Hate those Cottonwood trees.  Just take down one of them to remove the goal-post effect.  That green is great, but there seems to be no strategy off the tee… other than don’t be behind a tree.  

3. Most underrated -- maybe 11? As mentioned, that little bump at the front of the green makes approaches into that green very interesting and fun.

4. Not sure anything has been changed for the worse.  Not sure if this counts… wasn’t the original tee shot on #17 further to the right than it is now… from basically behind the 10th green creating a “cape” type tee shot?  If that hasn’t been reintroduced, that would be cool.

[Mark Saltzman]

Mark,

Do you mean that the 9 holes Perry Maxwell did at PD are the best 9 holes he designed as in a 9 hole set or as in the 9 individual holes?  If the latter, are you saying that 13 at Crystal Downs or 7 at Old Town would not make the list of the 9 best holes Perry Maxwell has designed?

JC, as a set.

Would be interesting to come up with a list of Perry's best 9 holes (individually), but I know how list-averse this board is!

You want to make the argument that 13 at CD is in his top-9? I'm not convinced it is.  7 at OTC, OTOH, is awesome, IMHO.

[JC Jones]

Mark,

Do they still play the 9 as a set or are Press's holes blended in? 

[Mark Saltzman]

Mark,

Do they still play the 9 as a set or are Press's holes blended in? 

Blended.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Some of the PD members can correct me, but the Perry Maxwell holes are: 1,2,6,7,8,9,10,17, and 18.  With that said, fairly certain Perry Maxwell draw up all 18 holes?

I played once with a guy who grew up in Hutchinson, before moving to the Phila. area (now resides in Boston area) and his family were members at PD.  It was only nine holes when he was a kid, and of course i didn't believe him. 

[Mark Saltzman]

Some of the PD members can correct me, but the Perry Maxwell holes are: 1,2,6,7,8,9,10,17, and 18. 

Yes...

[Scott Warren]

Wayne Wiggins,

3. Most underrated -- maybe 11? As mentioned, that little bump at the front of the green makes approaches into that green very interesting and fun.

I agree, Press Maxwell's knob is superb!









1.  I think it's fair to make some comparisons to the architect's other courses, as long as you say WHY the Redan at Chicago is better or worse than another.  (Holes-in-one do not count.)

Prairie Dunes and Pine Valley have perhaps the two best sets of greens I have played. I have no further experience of Perry Maxwell, but I don't think I need any more to know he was a genius and understood as well as anyone what made golf fun and interesting.

2.  Everyone should include the hole they like the least and why.

The trees on 12 take away from how brilliant that green is to approach, recover to and putt on. They set that hole apart from any other on the course, but I'm not sure that's a good thing. The tree is the middle of 13 at Morfontaine similarly blocks a wonderful green from proper sight, and in both cases it's a shame.

Likewise, the trees on 15 and the low canopy you have to hit under - that's a shame.

3.  Everyone should say which hole they think is the most underrated and why.  (A vote on the best hole is much less interesting.)

I guess the choice is between the nine Press holes (3-5, 11-16). It's either 14 or 16. Great driving holes, approaches that demand precision and wonderful greens. If forced to choose, I'd go with 14.

4.  Everyone should feel free to discuss what they think has been changed for the worse and why; although at Chicago Golf Club, I think this category is nearly moot."

What's changed for the worse? I haven't got a clue.

[Tom_Doak]

So I went back and found Tom Doak's suggested ground rules for detailed discussion of well-known courses.  They are below, in connection with the discussion of Chicago Golf Club:

Ground rules:  

"1.  I think it's fair to make some comparisons to the architect's other courses, as long as you say WHY the Redan at Chicago is better or worse than another.  (Holes-in-one do not count.)

2.  Everyone should include the hole they like the least and why.

3.  Everyone should say which hole they think is the most underrated and why.  (A vote on the best hole is much less interesting.)

4.  Everyone should feel free to discuss what they think has been changed for the worse and why; although at Chicago Golf Club, I think this category is nearly moot."

On reading this, I think there should be a fifth category ... 5.  What makes the course special in your eyes?

As to Prairie Dunes, my thoughts are as follows:

1.  I've always thought Prairie Dunes was the only really close cousin to Crystal Downs.  It's different, because it was not laid out by MacKenzie, so Prairie Dunes doesn't have either the highly original holes laid out over topography (like the 5th and 8th at the Downs), or the tiered or elongated greens (like the 1st and 7th at the Downs), but similar in terms of being relatively short but extremely difficult, the in the severity of the greens, and in the use of native gunch as both framing and penalty.  (Also, both courses have just two par-5 holes.)  I have not played enough other Maxwell originals, but while the severity of the greens is a constant in his work, he was not as consistent in those other traits.  Prairie Dunes was built only a couple of years after Crystal Downs and I think the influence is obvious.

2.  Number 5 and number 16, already cited by others, are both big strong par-4's that are relatively simple compared to the rest ... less topographic interest to the fairways.  But both serve their purpose well.  By contrast, #14 is a dramatic corner of the property, but I don't think the hole gets much out of it.

3.  Number 1 is a very underrated opening hole, a really tough start.  Number 10 is one of the great greens in golf, it's too bad all the gunch makes it hard to get a good feel for the hole off the tee.  I'm also a fan of number 12 which others have panned ... it's a great green and a great length of hole, and I think it provides essential variety to the course.  But, the 6th and 8th are the most memorable holes.

4.  I have not been back for 15 or even 20 years, so I have not seen the work on the bunkering or the addition of the mound on #7 ... I hope that doesn't take away from the green complex, which I have a drawing of somewhere in my design files.

5.  What makes Prairie Dunes special is the severity of the greens and the wonderful choice of green sites.  Interestingly there are a lot of uphill approach shots, which a lot of people don't love and some don't like about my own work, but those green sites are what make the course challenging.  It's also a special place in terms of atmosphere ... it takes some effort to get there, but they are always so hospitable to people who have made the trip to see them, and they are really humble about what a good course it is because they aren't there to impress anybody, they are there to enjoy it themselves. 

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

So I went back and found Tom Doak's suggested ground rules for detailed discussion of well-known courses.  They are below, in connection with the discussion of Chicago Golf Club:

Ground rules:  

"1.  I think it's fair to make some comparisons to the architect's other courses, as long as you say WHY the Redan at Chicago is better or worse than another.  (Holes-in-one do not count.)

2.  Everyone should include the hole they like the least and why.

3.  Everyone should say which hole they think is the most underrated and why.  (A vote on the best hole is much less interesting.)

4.  Everyone should feel free to discuss what they think has been changed for the worse and why; although at Chicago Golf Club, I think this category is nearly moot."

3.  Number 1 is a very underrated opening hole, a really tough start.  Number 10 is one of the great greens in golf, it's too bad all the gunch makes it hard to get a good feel for the hole off the tee.  I'm also a fan of number 12 which others have panned ... it's a great green and a great length of hole, and I think it provides essential variety to the course.  But, the 6th and 8th are the most memorable holes.

Tom, i agree... i really like #12... especially the green.  I just dislike the Cottonwood Tree goalposts that seem a bit out of place with the rest of the course.  What about you?  what do you think of those trees... would you keep, remove them both, or remove just one (and which one) if you were "in charge".

[K. Krahenbuhl]

Tom, i agree... i really like #12... especially the green.  I just dislike the Cottonwood Tree goalposts that seem a bit out of place with the rest of the course.  What about you?  what do you think of those trees... would you keep, remove them both, or remove just one (and which one) if you were "in charge".

I like them because they make me think off the tee.  If they weren't there in downwind conditions that green is just about reachable.  At most the longer players from the tee would have only a pitch remaining.  With the 13th hole (more specifically the forward tee boxes) to the right, it gives you plenty of room to spray the ball if you want to attempt a big drive.  The trees help keep you honest.  They make you position a tee shot for an angle on your approach or leave your ball far enough back so that you can play over them.

[C. Squier]

The more I play PD, the more and more vexing #12 becomes b/c of those trees. I've hit anything from driver to 6 iron off that tee and I still have no idea how to most effectively play the hole.  Consequently, if the club ever does a "memorial bench" program, I'll be buying the one on #13 tee b/c I'm often found heading over to it earlier than the group w/ my ball in pocket handicap double.  Even if you get to the green relatively safely, it is one of the most difficult to putt.  Since there are hardly any other trees on the rest of the course, they present a very unique hazard at PD and should absolutely stay, IMO.

As for the trees around #15 tee box?  If you take the time to look at the angles, they should NEVER be in play.  However, they completely mind &$#% a player into a bad shot.  I've seen a low single digit hdcp player hit them 4 rounds in a row....if they had not been there, the resulting shots would have been 80 yards right of the green, shots that no good player rarely hit.....and never 4 rounds in a row.  All in the mind.  

Give an architect today those 18 greens as a head start and I can't imagine the end result not being fun to play.  I've only seen one other set of greens that I would consider an equal, and Maxwell had his hand in some of them too.

[Tom_Doak]

Give an architect today those 18 greens as a head start and I can't imagine the end result not being fun to play.  I've only seen one other set of greens that I would consider an equal, and Maxwell had his hand in some of them too.

I have a friend (a magazine panelist) who told me he doesn't like severe greens.  I questioned how this could be, since he had previously told me that he had Prairie Dunes in his top ten, and he responded that "Prairie Dunes doesn't have a difficult set of greens, does it?"  I've been a little less interested in the opinions of well-traveled panelists since then.

[Greg Ohlendorf]

The great thing about PD is that the greens are difficult, but not unfair. I have seen way too many courses that have been built in the last 20 years that have difficult greens, but in far too many cases, they are also unfair and sometimes even unplayable. PD shows what can be done with what I would rather call "interesting" greens where the player needs to think around them.

It's one of those rare courses that presents variety and challenge from 1 thru 18. It plays different from round to round due to the wind conditions that can change by the hour.

It's obviously the best Maxwell course. If I have to pick my least favorite hole, I'd throw out 12, not because I don't like it, but because I haven't played it on many of my rounds there! I think 6 is a truly under rated hole. And the changes done around 1, 7, and 8 were outstanding. Most of my guests think those dunes have been there forever.

It's a special place for many of the reasons stAted above, but the low key feel in rural Kansas is hard to beat.

Greg

[Ian Andrew]

Mr Goldman,

Great idea


1. Comparison to another Course

I’m going to go sideways and compare it to Royal Melbourne. I really appreciate the efforts that Claude Crockford made to preserve, enhance and encourage the redevelopment of native ground covers and plants. Royal Melbourne is not only a great piece of architecture, but an outstanding example of the ecosystem that was there long before the golf course. Until I went to Prairie Dunes, this was the gold standard for me.

Prairie Dunes has also undergone a similar journey under the stewardship of Stan George (rest in peace) who spent a quarter century encouraging the return of many species of native prairie. The importance of his efforts was made very clear when a diversity study found that the course had as impressive a list of plants birds and animals as a significant wildlife sanctuary in the State.

What they both have is a special sense of place. Prairie Dunes elegantly blurs the lines between the prairie ecosystem and Maxwell’s playing field. What overwhelms my senses is the borrowed scenery beyond that makes me feel part of the landscape as much as engaged in the sport. I know for some that it’s just “gunch” and for them I feel sorry, but to me it’s a successful partnership of nature and man.  I find a connection as strong as this to be a very moving experience that everyone should enjoy as the light fades into the night. The evening light only enhances the textures and colours and showcases the scale of those marvelous undulations unique to that one small spot in Kansas.

Bill Coore told me in Chattanooga there was no Sand Hills without Prairie Dunes. I think once you have been to Prairie Dunes, you can’t help but be influenced by what you see and what you can accomplish combining nature and golf in a far more intimate approach.


If I missed the idea of this thread, I apologize, but I found my experience at Prairie Dunes to be profoundly influential on what I wanted to accomplish beyond the sport.



I need to think about the next question some more.

[Ian Andrew]

2. What I Like the Least

Rather than the holes, I’m going to pick an aspect instead for the fun of it.

For me it’s those damned Cottonwood’s. As you can tell from last post, I was enthralled by the expanse and textures of the open prairie. But standing on the 12th tees all I could think of was how much the trees squeezed the hole. While I’ll concede Tom’s comments about variety, I immediately missed the open prairie desperately. I know the trees are copses and part of the regional landscape. And yes I get the transition from macro to intimate and back out again is a great example of compression and release (the contrast of tight and open spaces makes each seem bigger or smaller through comparison). Perhaps I have intimacy issues (oh come on that’s a funny line…) 

But screw it, perhaps this is just to be argumentative, since I doubt I would actually change the setting if I was the consulting architect, but I would rather not have that change of pace/contrast of settings/reprieve/reset/ that this corner creates.

I expect to be cut down faster than the trees 

[Ian Andrew]

I did this for a close friend to say thanks - he's a member at PD



I came within a whisker of joining that week-end ... what an idiot ... I should have ...

[Sean Leary]

The more I play PD, the more and more vexing #12 becomes b/c of those trees. I've hit anything from driver to 6 iron off that tee and I still have no idea how to most effectively play the hole.  Consequently, if the club ever does a "memorial bench" program, I'll be buying the one on #13 tee b/c I'm often found heading over to it earlier than the group w/ my ball in pocket handicap double.  Even if you get to the green relatively safely, it is one of the most difficult to putt.  Since there are hardly any other trees on the rest of the course, they present a very unique hazard at PD and should absolutely stay, IMO.

As for the trees around #15 tee box?  If you take the time to look at the angles, they should NEVER be in play.  However, they completely mind &$#% a player into a bad shot.  I've seen a low single digit hdcp player hit them 4 rounds in a row....if they had not been there, the resulting shots would have been 80 yards right of the green, shots that no good player rarely hit.....and never 4 rounds in a row.  All in the mind.  

Give an architect today those 18 greens as a head start and I can't imagine the end result not being fun to play.  I've only seen one other set of greens that I would consider an equal, and Maxwell had his hand in some of them too.

Agreed on comments from you and KK on 12. When I first joined in 2006, the trees were even more intrusive before a ice storm naturally trimmed them up. They grow more of course every year, but they are an ok length for now.

Disagree on 15 in that high ball hitters can hit the canopy. Take out the canopy and its fine, I agree..

[Terry Lavin]

I love PD, the course, the vibe and the people. I hesitate to offer any criticism because the PD faithful appear to be intolerant of such commentary, but here goes. On many holes, the fairway landing areas are pretty narrow and on most holes the gunsch comes into play a bit too quickly. As for tree issues, the goalpost defenders on 12 need to go, a bunch of the cottonwoods should go and the Chute hole should be renamed after most of the tunnel trees get cut down. To me, PD's greatness is somewhat muted by the defend-par-with-trees-and-gunsch mentality.  I think it would be much better and much more playable with minor changes.

[Scott Warren]

Terry,

I recall you raised the same issue on a thread I started last year.

My reply to you then - and now - was and is this:

Terry L,

"Tight" isn't a word that comes to mind when I think of Prairie Dunes.

The 1st is about 90 yards gunch to gunch in the driving zone. The 5th, 80 yards. The 6th, 8th and 9th, about 75. The story is the same on the back. Even the two short fours (3 and 14) are in excess of 55 yards wide in the safe driving zones.

The gunch is extremely thick, but you have to hit a fairly poor shot to find it in almost all cases.

You didn't reply to that last August, but perhaps you didn't see it. I'd be interested in your response.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()