[TEPaul]

The Pennsylvania Open was completed today at Gil Hanse's Applebrook in Malvern PA. I was around it some when he was doing it and even got slightly involved in the strategic concept of one hole. But I'd forgotten or really never quite realized just what an interesting course it is with what I would consider some of the best conceptual strategic ideas and execution I've seen. I picked up on a whole lot of nuances about the course I'd never realized before.

Among other things an awful lot of those holes out there are truly unique in all kinds of ways with a lot of good greens spanning a real spectrum of shapes and sizes and looks and great contours. Also a number of the tees just flow right out of chipping area. To a man it seems like the competitors just loved the course, with many of them saying it was very different.

Robert Rohanna who won the tournament at -12 over three days (par 71) shot a 63 yesterday and he tripled one par 4. We called Gil up and told him about that and he said if someone plays the course that good they deserve to shoot a score like that.

For this time of the year around here the condition of it was unbelievable. It had what I call "the light green sheen."

By the way, Jim Sullivan Jr (and his dad) showed up at the end of the day. He won the Pa Mid-Am Championship at Applebrook a few years ago---I'd say like 2006.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom,
Gil did a wonderful job at Applebrook.  You noticed the same things I did - great green variety (size and shape), clever use of tees off chipping areas, and the like.  I also think it has really nice routing - the ONLY thing I'd change is to bump the short par 4 2nd hole to later in the round, but that's a VERY minor thing.

Did you notice Gil's "as built" drawings in the clubhouse?  Very nice touch.

PS - Applebrook and French Creek play a Hanse Cup every year.  So far they've kicked our tail every time! 

[JESII]

I hate the threads on here where we amateurs suggest what we would differently on a course because it's like wondering how Favre could ever throw an incompletion...but the only thing I can think to ask after seeing Applebrook again after a few years is...why is this not everyone's favorite modern course? It just seems basically perfect to me, but I am admittedly not very critical.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Years ago, when you were touring the course with Gil Hanse, didn't he tell you that he created certain areas for chipping in a tribute to and an effort to bring back the STYMIE ?   

I too like the golf course, and I liked how the tees for the next hole emerged seemlessly from the prior greens.
Are those tees still in use ?

[TEPaul]

"- the ONLY thing I'd change is to bump the short par 4 2nd hole to later in the round, but that's a VERY minor thing."


Well, Dan, as you know, that's just a sort of philosophical statement and idea but in reality you can't actually do that now.

But there are two things I would recommend for Applebrook to change. One is that mid-fairway bunker on #16----strategically I just don't think it does or can do what it was probably intended to do.

The other hole that I actually spent three days on is #14 (for the third championship in a row). In many, many ways I think that hole is architecturally, conceptually, deceptively and strategically totally brilliant but it needs a fix and it ain't architectural, it's maintenance. I can explain that in detail.

As good as I think Applebrook is, we (the PA Golf Association officials), were talking about how that golf course is about the most "Rules unfriendly" thing we have ever seen. All that----well maybe some of that---- could be fixed, and fixed through some maintenance changes, not architectural changes, if the club even cares about that which they very well may not.

I'll tell you one philosophy that I know Gil loves and thank God Applebrook kept---and that is they do have some of the biggest fairways that I think exist in modern golf architecture and there are all kinds of conceptual and strategic and visual reasons for most of them. I would bet they have a serious 40+ acres of fairway out there.

But the greatest compliment I can give Applebrook architecturally is that every time you go out there you see or learn something else about the way it is or the way it plays which is Uber-cool.

And one more thing----I do know most of what Bill Kittleman concentrated on during that project and it is just so interesting and different and unique----well let's just call it what it really is----eccentric-----and man do I love really well executed eccentricity in golf course architecture. I was speaking with BillK the other day about another course and another situation and I don't even think he particularly recognizes the foregoing or admits it. Even if you really pinned him down on it he may not and after-all that just may be what real genius is.

Applebrook rocks and it was about as good as it can get for the PA Open. Thanks Jarred, Downtown Ken Brown, Matt, David McNabb, and of course Gil but most of all, you, Mr Belber---because if it wasn't for you I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even exist!

[Powell Arms]

TEPaul - would you elaborate on the impact of maintenance to the rules officials?  I'm familiar with the course, but I am having a tough time picturing why the course would be difficult for an official.

[Rory Connaughton]

Tom are there similarities between Applebrook and Stonewall North?  I have never seen AB but two of our assistants played in the PA Open and were very complimentary.

[Dan Herrmann]

Rory,
I'd throw out that there are more similarities between Applebrook and Stonewall North.  For one thing, the greens are much more similar. 

Powell,
I know what Tom's getting at.  He officiated a similar (but lower tier) event at French Creek a couple of years ago, and we had let some long and dense fescues  through the end of the fairway on #14.  Tom reported that a number of players hit their tee shots into this area and ended up with a lost golf ball.  After Tom's comments, our crew has been trying to thin out the fescues without just cutting them to rough height.  This preserves the architect's intent and makes the course more playable.

[George Pazin]

I hate the threads on here where we amateurs suggest what we would differently on a course because it's like wondering how Favre could ever throw an incompletion...but the only thing I can think to ask after seeing Applebrook again after a few years is...why is this not everyone's favorite modern course? It just seems basically perfect to me, but I am admittedly not very critical.

It's not sitting by the ocean, it's in Philly...ugh.

(Just teasing the Philly crowd. I'm a semi-honorary Philly guy due to college roots.)

I'm always amazed there isn't more discussion of Applebrook. My afternoon walk with the rest of the GCA group left me feeling I wish I could play it every day. It is very close to my own personal vision of ideal.

[Dan Herrmann]

One cool feature about Applebrook is the annual public play day.  It's only open to township residents, and was part of a deal to allow the course to be constructed. 

George - here's an old thread on Applebrook:  http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=17236.0

[D_Malley]

played applebrook once a couple of years ago
I really like the golf course

The scores seem to be very low compared to other PA open venues

Can any of you guys who have been out there this week offer any explanation for this

is it the set up, or maybe the conditioning

[JESII]

DM,

A ton of birdie holes and alot of bogeys. The winner at this level gets the most out of it, but look through and you'll see even he made a significant number of bogeys...including a triple bogey during his second round 63...

[Powell Arms]

Dan Herrmann - thanks. I can see where the problem would happen in the context of #14 at French Creek. I'm sure it is difficult to marshall, and annoying to players (me inlcuded) when lost balls come into play for a minor mishit. I had read the comment to mean "difficult to apply rules or administer a ruling". I wouldn't think lost balls are difficult, but rather frustrating for all involved

[Dan Herrmann]

Powell - exactly right.  The player unfamiliar with the course typically wouldn't hit a provisional because he wouldn't even think of a lost ball up there.   Lord knows, nobody wants to take the dreaded "walk of shame"!

[TEPaul]

Powell and Dan:

When I say there are some holes at Applebrook that are sort of "Rules Unfriendly" I am specifically referring to situations where there are WHs contiguous to areas outside the WHs ("through the green") in which balls can be easily lost and in which it is very hard for players and Rules officials to tell where the ball lies.

The holes that come to mind right now on courses I've worked are that are variations on that basic theme or problem are:

1. Lancaster's #7
2. HVGC's #10
3. French Creek's #3
4. French Creek's #14
5. Applebrook's #16
6. Applebrook's #10

But the mother of them all to me is:

7. Applebrook's #14


With the latter, players who drive the ball a little left of or at that quarry or particularly to the right of it and then cannot find it and also because they cannot tell from the tee if the ball is in the WH or lost outside it or even not realizing it may be lost at all causing them to neglect to play a provisional ball before walking off the tee thereby giving up the right to play a provional and generally requiring a long walk back to play stroke and distance after a search or even to take WH relief in a situation where the Rules do not really permit it. #14 at Applebrook is the most complex that way for Rules officials that I've seen even though on the last day I think I figured out at least some way players could determine it all better from the tee (if it was explained on the scorecard or on the "Conditions of Competitions Sheet). The best way to handle this kind of confusion and rules confusion on any hole though would be to get maintenance to basically clean up the rough area outside the WH to such an extent that it might easily pass the test known as Virtual Certain ("known or virtually certain----eg what used to be called "reasonable evidence"). However, I can also understand why the club may not want to do that due to the look of it.

[Powell Arms]

I suppose the other alternative is to extend the margins of the hazard such that they coincide with the unmaintained, probable "lost ball" area. Granted, such a change could create a change where a tee ball direction was less demanding than the original intent.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()