News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Kyle Harris

Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« on: March 03, 2006, 01:40:02 PM »
Just spent much of the morning touring Manny's with Scott May and seeing some of the Ron Forse master plan working being implemented.

Tree removal is happening to the tune of 300 or so trees per season and a lot of the view are opening back up. Perhaps most striking is the view from 7 green all the way across the valley to the clubhouse.

Fairway and green contours are being restored, with some of the greens almost doubling in size.

Here are some before and after shots.

4th Hole, May 2005:


4th Hole, March 2006:


The bunkering and green contours are definately more in line with the Flynn look here, and the larger green should make for a larger variety of hole locations.

6th Hole, May 2005:


6th Hole, March 2006:


Some of the more striking changes on the course. The right bunker was moved down the hill further and the left bunker shrunk significantly, bring a more Redan-ish feel to this hole. Also note the tree removal to the left and behind the green.

John Kavanaugh

Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2006, 01:50:13 PM »
Isn't it funny how many trees out there are living content little lives out on golf courses without a worry in the world...then boom goes the dynamite and it all comes crashing down in the name of a stupid game.  If I still worked in government I think I would propose an ordinance that required a two trees be planted for every one removed...that would put an end to this.   Except for making it a more interesting golf hole...what good is done by removing the trees behind the green...I'm glad they left the tree up by the cart path so you can get some shade when writing down the scores.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2006, 01:55:09 PM »
How do you know those trees were content?

Wouldn't you much rather be a book than a tree?

John Kavanaugh

Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2006, 02:00:36 PM »
I'd rather be a baseball bat in the hands of a child...and look where that would get me.  I'll stick with being the live tree.  Part of my job when I was first out of college was to police that nobody in the town I worked for hurt a tree that they may think they owned...Remember Mr. T...I worked in the town next door and we had the same laws.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2006, 02:05:48 PM »
 ???

John Kavanaugh

Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2006, 02:09:47 PM »
Mr. T from A Team fame bought a house in Lake Forest, IL and cut down all the trees cause he pitied the fool who likes to rake leaves...they wanted to throw him in jail.  Where I worked we wrote a number of ordinances that prevented anyone from touching a tree without our permission.  It would have been interesting if we could have done the same thing if a new golf course was built in town...I'd say we could have.

Joe Perches

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2006, 02:11:22 PM »
Fairway and green contours are being restored, with some of the greens almost doubling in size.  

There are some virtues in small targets.
Is the course getting so much play that larger greens are required?

Kyle Harris

Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2006, 02:15:01 PM »
Fairway and green contours are being restored, with some of the greens almost doubling in size.  

There are some virtues in small targets.
Is the course getting so much play that larger greens are required?


The greens are being brought to their original sizes.

Larger greens = more holes = more angles...  ;)

TEPaul

Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2006, 02:15:27 PM »
"Wouldn't you much rather be a book than a tree?"

Sully:

That's hilarious.

Look, I knew a lot of those trees at Manny's pretty well over the years and the truth is they were so packed together---something like NYC commuters in the subway at rush hour----that a good many of them told me they would be much more content to be toilet paper than a tree out on that golf course.

Sorry I couldn't get over there today Scott. I'll come over very soon---promise. I couldn't get on-line today and I had to solve that problem. Turns out I forgot to pay my Comcast bill.  ;)
« Last Edit: March 03, 2006, 02:19:09 PM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2006, 02:15:48 PM »
John,

I can appreciate the sentiment of protecting trees, honestly I can. Tell me something, does it make any difference if the trees are not naturally occurring? Does the life of one tree take precedence over the health of others? What circumstances could lead to someone being given permission to cut down one of the trees on their property?
« Last Edit: March 03, 2006, 02:17:39 PM by JES II »

John Kavanaugh

Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2006, 02:21:59 PM »
Jduece,

Trees that prevent a stream of tax revenue are less valuable than those that don't....and people who are nice to those in power generally have trees that are already half dead anyway.  You can tell when you tap on the tree of a friend.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2006, 02:26:27 PM »
 I think we can partially replace the number of removed trees with newly planted ones that are more in keeping with the type of trees found in the area. We also can use the property lines as a reasonable place to plant them. And we can shore up some areas where further tree loss would be detrimental to the course.

   But no tears should be shed for evergreens coming out of parkland courses in the northeast. The agronomic and playabilty benefits are wonderful.
AKA Mayday

TEPaul

Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2006, 02:28:59 PM »
JohnK:

I have no idea what kind of place you're in Pal, but I hope you're enjoying it.

Kyle Harris

Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2006, 02:29:18 PM »
I think we can partially replace the number of removed trees with newly planted ones that are more in keeping with the type of trees found in the area. We also can use the property lines as a reasonable place to plant them. And we can shore up some areas where further tree loss would be detrimental to the course.

   But no tears should be shed for evergreens coming out of parkland courses in the northeast. The agronomic and playabilty benefits are wonderful.

Mayday,

Scott May is doing just that and is planting a number of smaller pine trees along Twining Road (to the right of 16, if you recall) as he pulls down the other trees in the course boundary.

The advantages are very much argronomic, including air circulation and sunlight.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2006, 02:32:21 PM »
Jduece,

Trees that prevent a stream of tax revenue are less valuable than those that don't....and people who are nice to those in power generally have trees that are already half dead anyway.  You can tell when you tap on the tree of a friend.

Amazing concept John. What's truly amazing is that you brought it up here as a means of opposing the removal of trees.

What's the price for a tired old pine tree?

TEPaul

Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2006, 02:34:56 PM »
In my opinion Manufacturers and Rolling Green tree-wise are a lot alike. Both courses need to take out a considerable amount of trees on the course (both courses should've started doing this about 20-30 years ago) but both courses also need to be very careful about touching the trees on their boundaries. (there's stuff that needs to be hidden---permanently. ;) ).

Joe Perches

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2006, 02:35:06 PM »
Larger greens = more holes = more angles...  ;)

Not necessarily.  Is Sandpiper better than Pebble Beach?  Would Pebble Beach be better with larger greens?

Perhaps larger greens = reward poor shotmaking = more putting = slower play, etc.

cheers, Joe

Kyle Harris

Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2006, 02:35:32 PM »
In my opinion Manufacturers and Rolling Green tree-wise are a lot alike. Both courses need to take out a considerable amount of trees on the course (both courses should've started doing this about 20-30 years ago) but both courses also need to be very careful about touching the trees on their boundaries. (there's stuff that needs to be hidden---permanently. ;) ).

Wayne Morrison's golf game... for example.  :D
« Last Edit: March 03, 2006, 02:35:47 PM by Kyle Harris »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2006, 02:36:27 PM »
 Kyle,
    I can see the benefit of bringing that right bunker on #4 back into view. We have begun to think about the visual aspects of Flynn's bunkering. This is a very helpful example.

  Has the right bunker on #6 been moved toward the tee or just improved through more visible sand?
AKA Mayday

Kyle Harris

Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2006, 02:38:49 PM »
Larger greens = more holes = more angles...  ;)

Not necessarily.  Is Sandpiper better than Pebble Beach?  Would Pebble Beach be better with larger greens?

Perhaps larger greens = reward poor shotmaking = more putting = slower play, etc.

cheers, Joe

Joe,

That's a false dilemma. One case does not a generality make.

I feel that the angles and the presentation of hazards at Manny's are such that the larger greens in their original form are the best at making the course its toughest. Like most Flynn courses, it is a course of angles and fighting and challenging hazards for lines of attack.

A well-designed large green may not necessarily reward poor shotmaking, and I can't think of any examples that do. Especially if a premium is placed on both angle and trajectory.

John Kavanaugh

Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #20 on: March 03, 2006, 02:39:59 PM »
I currently support the removal of trees...I just used to be on the other side of the fence.  I hit a shot wednesday about 40yds right of center and was behind a huge pine that was not original to the course...I cursed the damn thing and thought of you guys all at the same time.  A pine tree 280yds out and 40yds off center....what were they thinking...I need that option.

Kyle Harris

Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #21 on: March 03, 2006, 02:40:30 PM »
Kyle,
    I can see the benefit of bringing that right bunker on #4 back into view. We have begun to think about the visual aspects of Flynn's bunkering. This is a very helpful example.

  Has the right bunker on #6 been moved toward the tee or just improved through more visible sand?

Moved toward the tee. The old location of the bunker is now sodded and mown as fairway (a lighter shade in the picture)... providing a kicker onto the green that requires a perfectly struck shot on the right trajectory to roll back to the hole. The relocation of the bunker has brought an intriguing ground game option into the hole that complements the shrinking of the left bunker since shots played directly at the flag have a great premium on reaching the green as not to bound down the hill toward the 7th tee.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2006, 02:41:20 PM by Kyle Harris »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2006, 02:45:26 PM »
 Is that a restoration or a new idea?
AKA Mayday

Kyle Harris

Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #23 on: March 03, 2006, 02:47:53 PM »
The person to ask is Jim Nagle or Ron Forse.

From the plans, it looks to be a restoration - the old location of the bunker just didn't fit in with anything I know of that Flynn did. It was certainly a more penal feature.

Joe Perches

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Manufacturers' G&CC Before and After
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2006, 02:52:06 PM »
A well-designed large green may not necessarily reward poor shotmaking, and I can't think of any examples that do.

Hello Kyle.  Can you please give some examples of what are in your opinion well-designed large greens with an approximate square footage?

What are the features of these greens that make a good design?

I believe people are generally better at putting than chipping.

Think of small v large greens with rough or hazard surrounds.
Think of small v large island greens.

Which more generally rewards poorer shotmaking?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back