The Country Club of Buffalo (Now Discussing Fairway Width)

[Kevin Lynch]

Jim -

I sincerely appreciate the insight and education.  

I've played CCB several times over the years, but apparently not enough times to have appreciated the number of dangerous situations that exist.  Now that you've highlighted them, I definitely see the reason for some of the more "fortified" areas.  And I appreciate that accommodations have been made to allow some additional playing area away from the nasty area.  For example, on 14, I notice that the bunker on the left side of the fairway has been removed (& a few trees) to allow people to play away from the dangerous right side (which is essentially in-course OB from what I saw Friday).  Unfortunately, our ultra-long host dissuaded me from playing out more to the left because he couldn't contemplate keeping a ball in play along that line (but after seeing the area, I see that is definitely a good play).  

However, my "tree culture" comment wasn't based solely on the new plantings.  One item that led me to that was the area you mentioned (the trees on the right of #4).  They seemed a bit unnecessary, especially given the right-to-left slope of the green.  That seemed like an area where you could provide additional fairway on the right of the DZ and let the green defend the poorer angle, rather than need that many trees.  It sounds like they're coming to that conclusion with your assistance.  But, it does give some indication that there is some element of resistance at the Club, which probably isn't too shocking given that the tree "losses" in 2006 were probably jarring enough.

There were other areas where I thought trees could have been thinned out more without sacrificing safety and provide some more playing room, but that's just personal preference (or what your definition of "wide" is for fairways).

I just compared the current layout with the 1927 Aerial and can see that this was a remarkably faithful restoration (absent an Oakmont-like tree removal program). But I can definitely see the many dangerous situations that abound (and probably were prevalent even in the 1920s, which may have precipitated the tree-lined evolution). If you wanted to be completely faithful to the original design on holes like #2 (with no trees dictating a line), you'd have to accept a high level of safety risk, so I understand that there are limitations in the extent of restoration.  Interestingly, the most heavily treed area in the 1920s was the area between 6&7, which was most affected by the ice storm.  I'm happy for that, as it is probably one of the most beautiful areas of the course which should be opened up for viewing.

Thanks again for your insight, and I apologize for the "under-informed" attribution of motive for some of the recent plantings.

[Kevin Lynch]

Six sets of tees?

Joe

Joe:

We think alike.  The modern need to have a tee for every player clashes with the intent of classic courses.

Of course, classical thinking of women as an afterthought or second class golfer probably isn't something we'd wish to restore. 

Looking at the card, the extra tees appear to be so women can actually have 3 sets of rated tees to choose from (rather than one afterthought set).  The yardage spreads from 6,852 all the way down to 4,815, which will allow even shorter hitting women (and men, for that matter) a chance to hit a few greens in regulation.

However, until I looked at the card, I didn't realize there were that many sets.  The additional tees were never a distraction that muddied your visuals from the back tees (and definitely no 120 yard RTJ runways).  I thought the additional tees were very well done.
 

[JNagle]

No doubt the six sets of tees may seem excessive but this is what we are beginning to see at a number of clubs.  CCB's Committee had a lot of input from the different playing groups and how they played each hole and where their landing areas are for each hole.  The tee placements are based upon that input.  There are six tees but four of those tees (Blue/White and Gold/Red) are a combination tee.  With such a broad cross-section of players present there is a need for the multiple sets.  Women (Sr's and younger / 9 holers vs. 18) have an option, Junior players, Senior men, average men and then the better players.  We also reinstated 13 "fore" bunkers off of the tees so the length in variety helped ease the decision add these features back in.  The tees are low profile with many set to the sides of the fairway away from the newly added bunkers. 

[Ronald Montesano]

"The modern need to have a tee for every player clashes with the intent of classic courses."

Surprised that someone in the architecture business (and someone not in the architecture business) would make this statement without asking the question first. Sure, it was kinda sorta phrased as a question, but in that smarmy way that immediately puts you on the defensive. I echo the other assessment of the tees: unless you're looking for them, they don't appear to you.

[Paul Gray]

I'm not sure that those bunkers have been marginalised enough. Surely the grass around them should be longer so as to ensure that no one ever runs into sand. 

[Ronald Montesano]

Thirteenth Hole: 551-531-452-452-447-393








Fourteenth Hole: 420-410-362-362-321-321










Fifteenth Hole: 417-381-344-344-315-315








Sixteenth Hole: 197-173-158-158-139-123




Seventeenth Hole: 470-436-337-337-306-306






Eighteenth Hole: 447-401-401-319-319-275

[Joe Hancock]

Ronald,

I wasn't looking to put anyone on the defensive...at least, not on a personal level. You indicate a question....what is the question, from your perspective? I have no doubt the remodel work is terrific, the course plays great, and the tees are unobtrusive(although a considerable amount more maintenance). I just wondered(aloud) if there actually were six sets of tees.

Joe

[Dan Herrmann]

Great photos.  It's stunning that the course exists like that on essentially flat land. 

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Aside from the 1st hole, this is a very hilly property.  I thought the 13th was unreachable because it climbs a good 60-70 feet on about an 80 degree dogleg.  The 16th is about 25 to 35 feet uphill which adds two clubs to its length--with a good 6 foot false front that extends about 20 feet into the green, this hole is flat out severe and tough.

[Kevin Lynch]

I'm not sure that those bunkers have been marginalised enough. Surely the grass around them should be longer so as to ensure that no one ever runs into sand. 

I can assure you that the fairway bunkers are plenty accessible based on my most recent play.  The rough was not high when I played last week, and that was after a heavy week of rain, so I imagine balls will still find their way to the sand.  In addition, the "buffers" of rough are pretty narrow.  Further, the reports from various members is that the club has definitely embraced a firm & fast set-up, which will allow even more run-out.  We were playing after a few heavy storms, and the course was still providing some bounce, which means it must have been plenty firm prior to the deluge.

However, your comment does lead me to a general question for Jim.


Jim -

Are the mowing lines expected to change at all over the final phases of the restoration (which you noted was still in progress)?  Is the intent to replicate the mowing lines from the 1920s aerials (i.e. wider fairways which lead into and around the fairway bunkers)?  In fact, looking at the 1927 aerial, it almost appears that some parallel fairways were connected with no rough in between (e.g. 9/10, 4/5, 7/11). 

Of course, that extreme isn't likely given the trees now separating those areas for safety reasons.  But is there an idea to eliminate the "buffer of rough" between the fairway and hazards, which was more the classical mowing pattern in the early 20th century?  Or is it still difficult for clubs to abandon the more modern mowing lines (either from cost or habit)?

[JNagle]

Kevin -

The plan that was implemented in 2012/13 included some fairway expansion based upon reinstating of bunkers or modifications/enlargement of others.  Holes such as 7, 14 and 17 had substantial fairway expansion and even center line
adjustments (7 & 14) due to safety issues.  Many fairways are to be expanded in the future (no timeline at the moment)
to further enhance the playability of the course, reintroduce playing angles and work in concert with the newer firmer conditions.

We will likely visit this summer to discuss some of the items being discussed here.  As for joining the fairways, that would be great.  Unfortunately, reality dictates otherwise.  We must always keep safety at the forefront.  Encouraging play closer to an adjoining hole may be problematic.

[Kevin Lynch]

Kevin -

The plan that was implemented in 2012/13 included some fairway expansion based upon reinstating of bunkers or modifications/enlargement of others.  Holes such as 7, 14 and 17 had substantial fairway expansion and even center line
adjustments (7 & 14) due to safety issues.  Many fairways are to be expanded in the future (no timeline at the moment)
to further enhance the playability of the course, reintroduce playing angles and work in concert with the newer firmer conditions.

We will likely visit this summer to discuss some of the items being discussed here.  As for joining the fairways, that would be great.  Unfortunately, reality dictates otherwise.  We must always keep safety at the forefront.  Encouraging play closer to an adjoining hole may be problematic.

Jim -

Thanks again for the insight.  I did notice the widening on 14 and 17.  The 7th was less noticeable (to me) as it is blind, but I'll certainly take your word for it.

Looking at the aerials, I definitely see places where you could create more fairway angles without much safety risk.  The mowing patterns (pre-resto) generally felt like a uniform 28-30 yards, with the rough areas varying in width.  I will be interested to see the further evolution of this classic. 

[JNagle]

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/golf/golf-by-jay-skurski-ccb-goes-back-to-the-future-20140618

[Dan Herrmann]

Aside from the 1st hole, this is a very hilly property.  I thought the 13th was unreachable because it climbs a good 60-70 feet on about an 80 degree dogleg.  The 16th is about 25 to 35 feet uphill which adds two clubs to its length--with a good 6 foot false front that extends about 20 feet into the green, this hole is flat out severe and tough.

Thanks - Like I said, I've never been to the golf course, but have traveled the surrounding roads many times and didn't remember any hills.

Great info - thanks!

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Hopefully, a few of these pictures will further help show the success of the restoration in bringing out the awesome quality of the greens

16th



6th


11th


12th


13th

[Ronald Montesano]

My initial goal was to low-key this thread along and I'm still faithful to it. I'm intend to develop one element per post from now on regarding the restoration act and the golf course, to give you a sense of its essence and its integrity. The first aspect I want to explore is the place where every hole begins: the tee box (or as my northern/western friends call it, the tee deck.)

One could probably find original images of the golf course in the club archives, and I'm betting that the tee decks were similar then to what they are in 2014. On a fairly-flat golf hole with a bit of rise, one can create (or at least, the illusion of) a blind tee shot by utilizing a lowered tee deck. I recall the first time I played CCB in 1981. I thought it was pretty cool how we ascended to tee boxes to hit our initial shots. I've since gathered that most of these elevated, play-away surfaces were a 1950s/60s thing, intended to create a vista. What they did was shorten the course and make it play unnaturally.

A number of architects had their hands on the course, between Ross & Co. in the 1920s and Fores, et al. in the 2010s. The most notable of these was RTJ 1 and my guess is that he looked around and said "elevate here, pinch fairway there, big old pond down there." I don't know what truly was in his head, so I can only surmise.

I'm thinking of holes like #2, #5, #6 (new back tee), #7 (new back tee), #9, #10, #11, #14 and #16, where you now play flat or slightly up to the fairway (If I have any of these wrong, please correct me.) As you see, it's not on every hole and not on every tee on every hole. It adds contrast to the holes where you play from a slightly-elevated starting point, slightly down to the drive zone.

The second aspect of the teeing grounds that I hope to illuminate is the siting of new, rear decks. The 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 15th and 17th all have new teeing grounds for the championship golfer that return proper drive zones to the playing field (again, correct me if I've included extras or excluded others.) With the evolution of equipment over the years, stronger players were able to take tighter lines over doglegs and areas of rough, allowing them to circumvent all hazards and strategic elements employed by Team DJR jr. The course did not shorter for the 8+ handicap, but for those who could fly the ball far enough to traverse the in-between, it was a new game.

No where other than the 7th and 8th hole stretch is an added tee deck more beneficial. Until the restoration, I had thought of the 7th as a weak par five and the 8th as the weakest of the short holes. The 7th now plays remarkably well, with a quarry right and rough left. Even the longest hitters will still have hybrid second in, which may be the best we can hope for in this day. The 8th is a neat par three that plays over a low hill to a vale to the green. The fairway doesn't play firmly enough to guarantee 60 yards of run each time, but I hit a driver from the 237-yard back tee the other day, with a bit of wind in the face, and found the middle of the green. Having a driver on a par three hole is a neat thing, from time to time.

[Sean_A]

Ronald

Thanks for the pix.  I realize that rough rings may be an improvement on what was in the ground previously, but I still see many incidents of rough blocking the path of least resistance to bunkers.  Do you have an explanation for this style of maintenance?  A good answer would go a long way to helping me understand the maintenance of practically every parklander in the midwest and northeast of the US.  I admit to my eye, it is a hideous practice that should only be employed only when necessary.  That does beg the question of what is necessary and I spose that it comes down to budget.  That said, if a bunker area can't be properly (imo) maintained, then perhaps there should be some thought as to being shod of it.  One reason I say this is because that sort of ring maintenance or full blown rough blocking the path of least resistance goes a long way to negating the benefits of shaping work or existing land forms, both visually and playing wise.  Coming from the PoV of rough being on the least favoured end of the course features continuum, I find this practice very frustrating.

I hope you take this post as inquisitive rather than an inquisition 

Ciao     

[JNagle]

Ron -

We will try and provide some insight where possible to either support your thoughts or provide a counter point as things developed through the process.  Since you started with tees, we will fill in the blanks where needed.  I am going to be speaking from memory of reading RTJ Sr.'s notes from his course visits in the 50's.  RTJ Sr. was hired by the club following his now famous work at Oak Hill helping them prepare for the US Open.  Holes 1 - 3 have remained relatively unchanged.  #4 was lengthened and played as a mediocre par 5.  Jones modified the approach to the green and added a bunker rear left which "ate" into the green.  We (when I say we, I mean FDI and CCB) shortened the overall length of the hole from all of the tees but the hole was changed to a par 4.  We always thought that the 5th tee was elevated by Jones, but upon review of his notes he discusses the already existing rear tee.  We did lower this tee a couple of feet during the process.  Hole 6 is basically as it was when the course opened.  We did add a new rear tee playing at approximately 185 yards.  The 7th hole was modified when the pond was built on #16 (pond was added by Cornish in the 70's).  The tee was elevated significantly for visual purposes.  As you stated the hole was an o.k. par 5.  We modified and lowered (by a few feet) the existing rear tee and added a new rear tee adding some 35 yards to the hole.  Hole 8 - tees were realigned and lowered.  The previous rear tee was essentially the same from the opening of the course.  We added the new rear tee to lengthen the hole and to provide greater variety between the par 3's.  Hole 9 - Tees had been modified over the years with the hole being lengthened at one point.  We added a new rear tee and realigned the others.  The new rear tee in concert with another fairway bunker right side of the dogleg reinstated the design intent by extending the hazards accounting for the changes in equipment.   The 10th hole was simply lowered.  This tee was raised by Jones.  The 11th tee was lowered well over 5 1/2 feet.  This tee was also raised.  Just not sure it if was Jones or someone else.  We added a new rear tee back and right gaining nearly twenty yards.  By doing so, this brings the right fairway bunkers more into play and leaves a longer shot into the bunkerless green as was intended.  The 12th hole also included some tee lowering and significant expansion (shortest of the par 3's).  The rear tee was also lowered but its yardage stayed the same.  This tee was added during previous renovations.  13 -16 all had tees lowered with little to no lengthening with the exception of the 15th and 16th holes where the tees were lengthened by 7 - 10 yards.  Hole 17 had modifications to the middle through forward tees.  Their elevations and alignments were modified as the center line of the hole shifted closer to the original left line of play.  The 18th hole was lengthened and its tees were also lowered.

The lowering of many of the tees coupled with the addition of 14 holes with "fore" bunkers made for a significant visual impact off of the tees.  Numerous tees were adjusted to the right or left allowing those players to either never have to contend with the "fore" bunkers or to avoid them completely.  By lowering some of the tees there was some net gain in the overall yardage but that was not always the goal.  The primary goal was to recreate the original tees shots designed into the course by Donald Ross.  One cannot fully tell the elevation of a feature without an original topo plan, so we had to go off of member memories (not all tees were raised in the 50's) and the narrative developed by Jones during his tours of the course.  The photos of the course are an excellent tool to see how the course looks now, but I have to admit it does not tell the full story as the course appears flatter than it actually is.  

[JNagle]

Sean_A

We have seen the "ring" that you talk about on many, many courses and it seems to be a function of the multiple cuts and a desire to provide a distinction between the fairway and rough.  It does get frustrating on some courses when we as the architect want to get the fairway as close as possible to a hazard only to then have to consider the multiple cuts and fringe grasses.  Truthfully, I don't mind a small portion of rough grass directly adjacent to bunkers, but in many instances there is over 6' of grass between the hazard and the fairway cut.  We actually have a visit to a course next week to talk about this very issue.  The USGA Green Section Record has recently published an article discussing the same issue and the downside of the intermediate or "step" cut.  We have been involved with some projects where this portion of rough has been eliminated.  Love to see the instance where a risk taken can gain the full reward with fairway as close as practical. Maintenance practices evolve with time (some good some bad).  We are starting to see a swing back to less numbers of cuts which will help with what you are talking about.  One very poor situation is where a client of ours has a bunker rear right of the green.  Within a ten foot distance there were five heights of cut - green, collar, step, intermediate and rough.

As it pertains to CCB.  In an earlier posting I mentioned the Club has not fully implemented their plan and the largest portion left undone are the fairway and green expansions. 

[Kevin Lynch]

The lower-profile tees was definitely noticed and I thought the resultant blindness went a long way towards increasing the difficulty of the driving game.  Of course the fairways didn't get any smaller, but the lack of visual confirmation added an element of uncertainty that had to be overcome.  

Actually, the effect was even better in that the fairways were not completely blind (in which case I may envision them being wide).  Rather, the new bunkers & lower profile tees made fairly generous landing areas appear much narrower than they were, and sometimes even tempted me towards less-ideal areas.  I can think of several holes that ending up looking much more different than I had expected when I reached the drive zone.  It added elements of "puzzle solving" or "committing to a line" that were appreciated.  In particular:

#5 -  From the tee, the only area of visual confirmation is to the right, but very short.  As a result, you start looking over the bunkers to choose an ideal line.  In reality, just over the right side of the bunker and towards the right side tree leaves plenty of room and an ideal approach angle.  However, from the lower tee, this line only looks like a sliver of fairway, so you tend to bite off more than necessary to the left, bringing much more danger into play.

#9 - I was so confused on this one, which was great.  Looking at the aerials now, I can't even figure out how I was so confused, but I actually thought one of the final bunkers on the right was a centerline hazard, so I bit off much more than was necessary.  Again, the safe line is much farther to the left, but the fore bunkers make it seem like you'll inevitably drive it through the fairway on that line (it's much wider).  Again, for the second time, I was tricked into thinking the most generous landing area was narrow, and that the most dangerous line was large.  In a way, there was a similar effect on #1, but hearing stories of snap hooks onto Youngs Road were what tempted me into the dangerous line, rather than a visual deception.


#10 - Simply put, I thought I was in the right rough and that Ron was right in the middle of the fairway.  So much so that I ignored the ball dead in the center of the fairway until our host called me out of the right rough asking "what are you looking for?"  


#14 - Again, I think we're just afraid to aim at trees and aim for the open air instead.  There is plenty of landing area on the left (straight at the trees) and complete death out to the right side.  I'm not really a fan of hiding such a nasty hazard, but understand the reasoning from Jim's earlier safety comments.


Honestly, I never really appreciated the significant impact of lower-profile tees.  This particular restoration was an eye-opener - an illustrative case study.  I will be looking at a number of courses going forward and thinking about how different a tee shot will look with just a few feet of elevation change.

No doubt the lower profiles is why I never noticed there were 6 sets of tees until someone mentioned it earlier.

[Ronald Montesano]

The next, attention-worthy aspect of the ongoing CCB restoration would be fairway width. In one respect, this is the most fluid of the elements, as it is not always dependent upon permanent structures. I'll explain. Bunkering, lowered tees and expanded putting greens are mostly fixed, whereas mowing lines and grass heights are not. After a season or two of play, the superintendent, professional and committee members can discuss future steps and implement them in short order. My goal is to recognize holes where fairway width is of greater attention, based on to restorative work performed, physical trace of hole and

Holes 1, 2, 4, and 9 on the front side are dogleg-drive holes. Holes 3, 5 and 7 are not (6 and 8 are the par threes.) On the back, holes 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are dogleg-drive holes, while holes 10 and 11 are not (12 and 16 are the par three holes.) By dogleg-drive, I mean holes where the dogleg occurs before or in the drive zone, forcing the golfer to make a decision on driving club and angle of attack. Failure to decide/execute properly on either count results in a less-estimable circumstance for the playing of the subsequent shot. In this post, I'll look at the front-nine driving holes. I plan to address the back-nine driving holes in a subsequent commentary.

Holes 1 and 2 restored bunkers on the inside of the dogleg. Both previously played as simple holes and birdies were common, due to the weakness of the drive. Better players could go through the dogleg, directly at the green and have 50 yards in to these par fours. That one plays left to right and two plays right to left were of no importance. With the reclaimed, inside-corner, bunker nests, coupled with lowered and extended teeing grounds, the bomb over the corner is now an option for a brave and capable few. Impediments to a poor drive line await on the far side of the first fairway (left-side mounds) and the second fairway (right-side bunkers), so long and through is not ideal.

The 4th hole is Kevin's Bane, as two focal trees overhang the right side of the drive line and reduce the drive play to a fade. I'm not a fan of this type of protection, although there is a contrary, reduction-to-a-draw on the 15th hole (more on that later.) The left side of the 4th hole drive zone is lined with bunkers shared by the 5th hole. I would like to see the fairway mowing line on that side left alone, but expanded up the right, so that balls that go into the overhanging trees have a decent chance at a manageable lie. The hole is quite long for its par (which still matters to some), qualifying as a half-shot hole, yet it is manageable if you play it properly. Once past the drive zone, the hole runs straight for over 250 yards and is quite wide in what used to be the landing area for the second shot. Given its current length-to-par ratio, opening up a driving line along the right will not make it play that much easier. The 2nd and 4th holes have some unique element (wind, a bit down-grain/hill/something) that brings shots to the rear of the green with ease. The hole is a manageable 5 and a tough 4.

The 9th hole saw the elimination of a large tree along the inside corner during the storm that claimed 500+ trees half a decade ago. Since no one drives through trees, that arboreal loss brought strategy back to the hole. The tree used to force tee balls left, toward rough, border bushes and oob. The restoration placed a four-bunker sequence along the inside corner of the dogleg-right hole, making the drive line a critical decision. The hole plays a good 40 yards longer than the other dogleg right (one) on the front nine, so a longer iron or hybrid will be used to come into the green. The putting surface is quite narrow and is well protected.