[David Kelly]

Personally, I'd like 12 a lot more if the forward tee was used and it was drivable . . . say about 310-325 or so with firm fairways would be perfect.  

The USGA was supposed to do just that.  They had earmarked the original tee on #12 so that it could be used one day as a driveable par 4.  They had even grown the rough from 75 yards and in extra high like on #6 at WF for the US Open.  The rough in that area and to the right of the green was 10 inches in places.

I don't know why they didn't go ahead.

I also wondered why they played #2 so short all week.

[T_MacWood]

Tom
PD has some of the more memorable strolls from green up to tee and tees that really feel architectural as opposed to just placed: 3rd, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th and 18th. And none of them are forced or awkward, they meld naturally with the flow of the course.

I hope Jason isn't a member...he'll have Ault & Clark improving it in short order.

[David Kelly]

I would like to see the stuff thinned out so balls 10-15 feet into the gunch could be found and hacked out with a wedge.  

Sacrilege!

[Lou_Duran]

Jason B.,

Far be it for me to second guess anyone like either of the Maxwells or the Carey family.  Prairie Dunes' history and standing speak well enough for the club.  Nevertheless, hindsight being 20/20, it can help to flesh-out some opportunities not present or available at the earlier time.  As you know, the budget was a considerable issue when the course was built in nines with a 20 year gap.

I don't think it is known whether Press took his father's routing for the second nine and just executed the plan, or it if it was his own original work.  With some 480 acres and "118 holes", it is reasonable to conclude that there could have been a number of opportunities lost to money, time, and Press' capabilities (I don't think that many would argue that the son possesed talents approaching his father's).

My comment regarding #11 was in response to your assertion that Press had less dramatic land to work with.  We didn't have the time to go look at the land west and north of #11, so I can't suggest an alternate #12.  I will say that having to intergrate Perry's first nine into the routing for the full 18 surely limited what land Press was able to utilize.

I do like #13 and 14 very much (with 14 a much, much superior short par 4 than #12), but am not a fan at all of #15.  To play armchair architect, who knows if a long par 3 going NE (from a dune north and west of the current #12 tee) to the lower current green site of #12 not worked out better.  Move the tips back on #15 some 50-70  yards  (may have to cut a cottonwood or two, but these are trash trees anyways) and the green a similar amount back and right, smaller in size and Perryesque.  Now you have a more interesting, drivable short 4, a long 5 (#11), and a long 3 (#12) that is totally unlike the other one-shot holes.

On the other hand, PD is just fine the way it is.  Do notice, I didn't recommend Fazio and Wadsworth as the team to do the work.

BTW, during my first visit I played as a twosome with the GM who is a PGA member and a fine golfer.  We walked the course (pulling carts as I recall), and he showed me some of the changes made to the course over the years.

Later, I was also fortunate to play with one of the club's leading senior members (who played amateur golf nationally and been a longtime member).  This gentleman was involved in some capacity with the proposed changes (some apparently prompted by the desire to become more attractive to the USGA), and was concerned that the back tee additions had already tampered negatively with the routing and flow of the course.   He showed me some new tee sites and changes that were being discussed (ostensibly to bring the "Big Show" to Hutchinson), and a few of these appeared to be radical.  I am sure he is pleased that the experimental faux dunes, more like small-scale, sparely-grassed mounds, between #12 and 13 were scraped off.  

[Jason Blasberg]

I hope Jason isn't a member...he'll have Ault & Clark improving it in short order.

My redesign Master Plan is already on file  

What else would you like me to redesign?  Cuscowilla's a little young but I've already filed my redesign Master Plan there too.  

[Jason Blasberg]

I would like to see the stuff thinned out so balls 10-15 feet into the gunch could be found and hacked out with a wedge.  

Sacrilege!

And why is that?  Seriously, are you serious?

[David Kelly]

I would like to see the stuff thinned out so balls 10-15 feet into the gunch could be found and hacked out with a wedge.  

Sacrilege!

And why is that?  Seriously, are you serious?

Seriously, I am seriously serious.  I like it the way it is.  There is plenty of room to avoid the gunch on even the windiest days and there are times during the year when you can actually find balls and play them - especially if they are more than a few feet into the bad stuff.

The gunch is there and it effects people's thinking on every hole.  To lessen the penal aspects of it would take away one of the courses great defenses, i.e. the fear of the gunch.

[Jason Blasberg]

David:

What times of year do you play there?  I've played in March and May the last two years and the gunch is HEALTHY in most spots.  

For instance, look at the photo of 5 fairway in Ran's review, just left of the fairway bunker and actually on the inside of the second fairway bunker line it's a lost ball.  

Down wind from that elevated tee that junk is very much in play if you're hitting driver.  That stuff is just too penal to be that close to the line of play.  #5 is a great strategic hole with visual deception as the best angle is left side of the  fairway that slopes left to right and your eye sees that hill on the left and that junk and sees all the room right and you block it right only to have to negotiate the cavernous right front greenside bunker.  

The problem with the lost ball junk being so close down the left side is that the risk of challenging the left side for the better angle is not worth taking.  I'd rather play from the right side all day than flirt with that stuff.  

In the interests of full disclosure I can literally hit it off some golf courses and I lost a ball right of the right rough on 5 last trip and I'm certainly not advocating any change there as that was a serious foul ball.  (For those that have played Seawane with me from the front tee on 13, I once hit such a high and hard hook that I hit driver over the canal down the left side about a good 250 off the tee and clear over the top of homes on the other side. . . it was even money whether it carried the street on the other side of the houses!!)

Likewise, if you hit into the middle of the hill left of 5 let it be quick sand, but thin out the bottom 20 feet or so, so that you can have a 70% chance of finding it and being able to wedge it back into play.  I've never advocated clearing the ground and if that was the only option to thin it I'd say leave it as is but I know fescue and brush can be thinned out over time and you would maintain the same visual intimidation but have only a 1 stroke penalty for hitting it 10-20 feet left of a fairway bunker as opposed to 2 strokes.

In contrast, see the fescues lining the left side of 1 and right side of 8.  I've been in each about 3 times and probably found 4 out of 6 balls and hacked out a wedge (I would have found all 6 if we had a forecaddie).

The junk in those spots is penal, but you can find it and hack it out.  

It wouldn't change the look of the course at all or the visual intimidation and would only speed up play and increase the fun factor!

Jason

[Adam Clayman]

Just got my first look at this beauty. The textures were awe inspiring, the greens geniusly difficult, and the rough was a crime.

I agree with David Kelly, the gunk is part and parcel of the textrue and the fears, but the rough leading up to the gunk should be trimmed to the last 6-10 feet. Covering terrain of that quality with rough seems redundant. Fronting the bunkers with rough, ill-conceived. The rough exudes the greens committee's overly dictatorial bent, which is unnecessary with greens of this quality.

I did notice the two bunkers on the right side LZ on #13 as being out of place. Not fitting the remainder. When I finally asked Mr. George about them, he said they were built 20 years ago by the previous super. Poorly placed and too shallow for the Maxwell look.

Mr. George also made reference to the marvelous bunker work C&C had done. Looking at the shared bunker complex, that lies between #1 and #3, I couldn't help but think of the Bunkerhill boys.

Other observations. The back tees on 7, 13 and 15 disrupt  an otherwise pefect flow. The odd sequencing of par, playing the first two par 3's in the first 4 holes, was odd, but not unenjoyable. The goal posts on 12 and 15 seemed out of place.

[PThomas]

Prairie Dunes is one helluva golf course

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()