"the original intent of the architect"

[mike_malone]

 I fully understand the struggles that many have with this effort because they lack a few or many of these factors.

[corey miller]

Ian


My reading of #11,#12 at Lavel-Sur-Le-Lac is also that you made a decision to better use the fill at #11 green rather than on #12 fairway?  Or do projects get staged  (might be part of the other thread?) where changes are made sometimes based on micro level rather than macro?

[MCirba]

Sully, the 14th at Philly CC has a bunker on the corner right about where you might hit it from the tips, I couldn't reach it anymore  , well maybe with new equipment!  The green slopes radically left to right and I would love to see them shave the rough short left of the green to bring the ground game into play. But that's another story.


The bunker looks awful from the tee IMO and basically tells you don't hit it left which is the short way home , a direct line. I'm hard pressed to believe that Flynn put it there as relief, which it is today. Its far easier to hit it out of the bunker and hold the green for an expert than out of the heavy rough which is all down the left side. My biggest beef isn't the bunker is easier, but that it looks so incongruous in that spot. It's just not aesthetically pleasing and serves no strategic value.


As to the architects original intent if I hit the lottery and bought Twisted Dune back I would immediately bulldoze the 3rd green and completely change the way that hole plays. Don't know what I was thinking at the time, except perhaps I wanted the players to see all the upcoming holes as they looked across the landscape. Anyway it doesn't work as the green would have been so much better being at elevation 20' versus elevation 70'. 


So as Tom points out there is a lot of stuff the original architect might like to redo with time and money and just never got around to or it didn't make financial sense to the membership. I'd concur that if in doubt let it lie but strict adherence to hands off might not always be the right path!

Archie,


Would you also put a bunker 20 yards short of the 18th green near the middle of the fairway at TD, ala Muirfield? 


I always thought that would get into the head of a better player who did not hit a particularly good drive or was in the rough and create a rewarding enticement for the average guy playing up a set and a go no-go situation. I remember us having that debate back many years ago.

[archie_struthers]

 




Hello Mike we've talked about this a long time ago and I'm still feeling the same way about the 18th. We've played a lot of skins games on Monday night with lots of good players and not a lot of birdies being made. Yet its a challenging par for someone who doesn't hit it quite as well. The pro tees are so deep that we generally play the hole from about 445 yards which is fun. The  green is canted slightly away and towards the left bunker but a really good player has trouble spinning it as its very flat. Did that hoping to take away that advantage and promote the chances of those who need to bump it in to get home.

If I was "king of the world" would redo the third and fifth holes but not 18. Remember that Twisted Dune was supposed to be limited rounds and strictly an adjunct to Greate Bay. This would have allowed us to take some liberties with water usage and play it incredibly firm and fast. That was the whole idea of the design. When we didn't get paid fairly for all the dirt we sold to the H-tract and tunnel connector project it made us change gears completely.


Then if still "king" would rip out that friggin bunker at the elbow of the 14th at Philly CC!

[Ian Andrew]

My reading of #11,#12 at Lavel-Sur-Le-Lac is also that you made a decision to better use the fill at #11 green rather than on #12 fairway?  Or do projects get staged  (might be part of the other thread?) where changes are made sometimes based on micro level rather than macro?

Corey,

Green site ridge on the 11th was built first because of where it was and what was going there.
We had some massive limestone rocks to loose and they went there immediately early on.
We used some marginal material we had to get rid off to fill between the rocks where the tees and greens were not going.

We were far more careful with layering in materials under the green and leaving the cavity for the bunker to be shaped.
Material management was a factor in this project, but I was there just about every single day for 4 months straight.

12th hole and 11th fairway bunkers were built a month after the 11th green was shaped, drained, finished and irrigated.
It was a pocket of work that played "catch up" all project long, but had a great access point, so it didn't matter.
My initial indecision is what left it behind for a while.

Hope that was informative.

Wish I had another project like this ...

[Ian Andrew]

This was the drawing I carried with me on site while I was building the 11th hole.

The notes about the right fairway bunker and its shift came after a walk with the PGA Tour.
The course was supposed to get the 2017 Canadian Open and the carry was intended from the Black Tee

Green notes were drawn in conversation with the shaper

[Ian Andrew]

Niall,

Here was the concept as I presented it for those middle holes

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - thanks. That's interesting in many ways, here's just one:

I don't know how architects manage to 'sell' their vision to clients. Okay, I'll grant that most clients-developers know more about golf and golf course architecture than I do....but can they really see/imagine a three dimensional reality off a two dimensional drawing?

I've stared at topo maps for an hour and couldn't make heads or tails of them, and even when planned golf holes are overlaid on them (as in your example) I can still only see green shapes. Do clients-developers see that much better than I do? And if not, what else do you have to say or show them that helps them to understand where you're going?   
Which is also to say: no wonder owners/future owners sometimes disregard the 'original intent' -- cause maybe they didn't even know what it was in the first place!

[corey miller]

I would admit to being clueless with a topo but do think a reasonable knowledgeable (perhaps the decision makers? ) within the given club should be familiar enough with the property to make sense of all these drawings. 


For the project I was involved with Gil Hanse did wonderful black and white schematics... a few months later some asked for color...you never know  [size=78%] [/size]

[JNagle]

Archie -


The timing of your post couldn't be more perfect.  The raindrops on my plans for the 14th hole at PCC have barely dried and the pencil lines are quite fresh.  Myself and an abbreviated committee walked the 14th hole yesterday and I returned later in the afternoon to further my studies of the hole.  The architectural evolution of the hole is as follows.  In his original design for the hole, the elbow bunker you refer too was present as well as the bunker short left of the green and the right green side bunker.  The internal slope of the green placed a premium on approach from the right side.  The short left bunker and adjoining fairway beyond and left of the green created an additional strategic component when hole locations were/are placed to the left.  Unfortunately with todays greens speeds it is difficult to cup along the left side.  In 1937 in preparation for the 1939 Open, William Flynn made many recommendations to the Club and USGA based upon how he observed the better golfers in the region play the course.  He did this to many of his designs.  Mr. Flynn also saw that the ever changing equipment was negatively impacting the play of PCC and other courses.  His recommendation for the 1st hole (now 14th) was to add a bunker to the left side 250 yards from the middle of the rear tee.  Those are his words but there is no further explanation.  Knowing why he did it is a bit of a guess, but we can imagine that he felt the advances in equipment was effectively shortening the hole and golfers were able to swing freely beyond the right fairway bunker and easily play the ball into the green.  During the run-up to the '39 Open, Flynn recommended a number of new tees, additional bunkers (basically eliminating bail out areas on holes 8, 14, 16, 17 and 18) and playing the original 5th as a par 4 and not a par 5.  The change in par was because of equipment.  He notes that many local pros were reaching the par 5's in two and this was not his intent.  The '39 was played as a par 69 and over 6800 yards.


As we look to the future of the 14th hole.  Our intent is to restore the short grass left and short of the green closer to the bunker.  Yes, I agree, the current right fairway bunker is not very challenging to recover from and it looks odd. The reasons for this are the firmness of the bunker sand - ease of recovery.  And secondly, there was an immediate need a number of years ago to perform a quick fix on the bunker to eliminate washing out of the sand.  Flynn, the 'Nature Faker' placed the bunker right in a draw.  The immediate solution was to raise the left side face to block the water.  This will be remedied in the future and the bunker will better blend with its surrounds.  The sand type will also change which will alter the ease of recovery from the bunker.


As for the two bunkers on the slope leading up to the 6th green.  Flynn added those to provide definition of the carry side of the steam that crosses the hole.  Originally the area was not as defined as it is today with the variety in grassing types and conditions. The simplicity of the look of these two bunkers and others at PCC are most likely due to the construction of the features.  Many of the changes recommended and implemented for the '39 Open were completed in-house and without the aid of one of Flynn's construction foreman. 


Hope this help shed some light on the 14th and Flynn's changes.

[archie_struthers]

 




Jay, it made my day to have someone comment on this at Philly CC. Thanks in great part to Tim DeBaufre I was able to see lots of old stuff that Flynn did and eventually wore him out asking questions about architecture. As a youngster caddied at Woodcrest CC another Flynn, very good but not nearly as nice as Philly CC. Tim was pro there and was able to loop for him many times. If he putted better who knows how good he might have been. More than anything his love for golf found its way to many of the caddies therealso. What a gentleman.  You guys did him right at Philly by honoring him and making him a member when he retired.


I am strictly talking about the left side bunker! Imagine the beautiful site line down that side if it were gone ! It adds nothing to the difficulty in fact makes it easier if you happen to hit it in there for the expert. It should go ! By doing this you would tempt the players to take this short route home and when they got there they would be screwed, pardon my french. Guessing that the conditions were very firm in 1939 and the ball would work off the left hill back into the fairway, not the case today.


As to the front of the green if they softened it just a little to help with pin positions, much like they did at #2 at Pine Valley, it would be really cool. Then you could shave the area left short and allow shorter hitter to play a bump and run into the hole. It could become a "sleeper" real quick and make that finishing stretch even better! Thanks for the reply