Genius at work

« **Reply #25 on:** May 08, 2004, 08:59:47 PM »

Who has the pleasure of being the Greens chairman at Rolling Green? That is one guy I do not envy!!!

« **Reply #26 on:** May 08, 2004, 09:07:05 PM »

Jason
The green chairman at RG is a long time member who has an open mind,he is a pleasure to work with.

« **Reply #27 on:** May 08, 2004, 09:28:00 PM »

TEPaul
You do talk tough

Wayne
One more idea on #1.The fact that Flynn designed something different there but never implemented it got me to think that the fairway was interesting,because it is different,just not in the way he designed it originally.Also,RG has few holes that do not have bunkers on both sides of the green (3-#1-#7-#13 i can think of and one of those is#13 which has a sharp hill) So,this is one of the few places where this can be done.
The fairway to the right of #7 will mostly slope toward the green,so only #1 lends itself to this maintenance idea,a gentle downslope off of the green to a flattish area not far away.

I want to add fairway to the back right of #5 as well---but that is a discussion for another day.

We have gotten away from the idea i started with---the joy of discovering the original intent.I don't think of this as divine revelation.It just creates for me an opportunity to discuss possibilities.I do think ,however, that it takes an openness to see these things not a rigid adherence to some concept of architecture.I am just constantly amazed how many times it just seems to be better to just go back to how Flynn did it then.Certainly he made changes BUT NOT TO THIS HOLE.

« **Reply #28 on:** May 08, 2004, 11:07:00 PM »

Mike,

The aerial photographs of #1 do not show conclusively what the grass height conditions were around the 1st green right after construction. As far as discovering original intent, have you found a box of recordings that Flynn made discussing his original intent? It seems to me that you've made a subjective conclusion about original intent that may be somewhat worthwhile but it cannot be considered original intent. I don't feel comfortable thinking that these golden age architects considered every little detail in the same way you do. It might be laughable to some of them the way we tend to over analyze things.

In any case, do not consider bunkers as permanent features as you stated a couple of posts ago. You've seen too many examples at RGGC that demonstrate that they are not permanent features by any means. We can list numerous examples on other Flynn courses where he sometimes added them and subtracted them over time. You better get this all straightened out before this dinner on Friday or you certainly will afterwards

See you around.
Wayne

« **Reply #29 on:** May 09, 2004, 07:10:39 AM »

redanman,
You'll be happy to know that the green chairman and the club president "get it" and there is real momentum going forward to address problem trees. In fact, the creek on the left of the first fairway on RGGC #7 has been mostly cleared and more to come. Now the right side will be addressed later this year with all the truly offensive pines scheduled for the wood chipper. Two of the four incredibly stupid trees on the short par 4 12th have been eradicated and the other two less offensive ones are scheduled to go as well. The green will be fully visible from the tee! And the right side creek was extended to the left just pass the corner of the turn. Lots of good stuff happening at RGGC. Also the 2 trees on the left secondary tree line of 15 have been removed as well that really tempts players to draw the ball around the turn, and perhaps even go with driver. I still stick with a 4 wood. I'd love to see some trees come out on the right side of that hole. While I do like trees on a golf course and think strategic uses add interesting variety, many trees on many courses are plain anti-strategic and need to go. We all know your feeling of trees, mine is less simplistic and quite a bit more sophisticated

« **Reply #30 on:** May 09, 2004, 07:46:10 AM »

redanman:

If any hole anywhere does not need to have trees as part of the equation, in my opinion, it would be the 10th at Lehigh. From tee to and past the green the topography on that hole is excellent and Flynn's placement and use of bunkers on it is about as good a bunker use with topography as I've ever seen anywhere, whether Flynn or anyone else.

Would that natural topography on Lehigh's #10 work well for golf and strategy if that hole had no bunkers on it? Of course it would but anyone should see it works even better with those bunkers placed the way they are on that interesting topography. The same is true on the 7th hole at RGGC down short and right of that green.

For the 7th hole at RGGC to work as well as it could in its topographical setting a couple of other things could and should be done to that hole including it's tees, including doing some serious drainage work on the left in the LZ, including clearing as many trees as possible out of that left side to bring the interesting diagonal of the creek into view and play and to also clear out as many trees as possible along the right side of the LZ. The reasons why that should be done should be obvious to anyone who knows and understands the ramifications of that hole and it's topography throughout.

If all that were to be cleared out and dried up what would be the ideal place to aggressively attack that green in two from and what would be the place not to? Does anyone actually prefer to attack a green from a postion where all the ground on the second half runs away casting the ball hard left like a tipped ski-jump? Of course not. The left side is ideal to strategically get to so one can play that aggressive second shot over that bunker and use the hillside past it to filter the ball perfectly onto the green.

That would certainly work if there was no bunker there. But what the bunker accomplishes is to put some intensity and thought into that shot distance-wise---not an insignificant thing to do architecurally!

I've played that hole many times, always in tournaments and I've watched many other very good players play it and I know precisely how golfers look at that hole. They stand on that tee, they basically can't see the fairway LZ, they can only see the trees closing in on both sides and the entire strategy is to just get something in between those trees and go from there. Some people like that high demand incremental single shot and one dimensional strategy that's basically straight architectural dictation but that's not optional at all with the sole exception of what any golfer thinks he can hit the straightest---the farthest!! There's a lot more going on down in that LZ than just that, in my opinion, and it should be used properly. Let a golfer get more aggressive on that tee shot by doing those things to that first end of the hole suggested. And if you allow him to get more aggressive on that tee shot then the real interest and fun begins---how to handle a more aggressive second shot to that green. Basically, for a good player and with it's distance restrictions that hole is a perfect "go/no go" short par 5. Everything possible on the tee shot should encourage the good player to go in two but if that's made more available to him on the tee shot some intensity needs to be used on the second shot to make him deal with temptation more intensely. There should be more done to encourage the player to get his tee shot closer to that perpindicular creek--he needs more of a green light on the tee shot but then if he hits a great drive the light shouldn't be completely green on that hillside unencumbered right of the green, it should be a yellow light with a bunker perfectly placed there. That'd be as good and thoughtful as that intersting hole could get, in my opinion.

Will that result in more birdies and eagles? Of course it will. It'll also result in more "others" because there'll be so much more to do and to think about on that hole than there is now!

« **Reply #31 on:** May 09, 2004, 10:50:39 AM »

I suggest you cut all the trees on the right down first

, and then continue the discussion on site. Either way you guys go, the hole is still better in the process!

....and I'll bring my flask for inspiration

« **Reply #32 on:** May 09, 2004, 01:45:54 PM »

It was mighty hard to achieve what has been done so far in terms of tree removal---but the goal is the removal of all trees planted in intended lines of play and landing areas.Then the focus can shift to an ongoing tree management program.
It is fun to talk about these things on this site;it is work to get it done on the ground.

redanman
Your insistence on further tree removal on the left side of#15 at RGGC motivated me to go back and do more research.I found a similarity betwen #15 and #7.Both have trees that were on the property that Flynn chose to keep.Both of these tree lines protect parallel holes.Both have creeks on the opposite side of these trees,which are the preferred landing places.Both have had trees planted on the inappropriate side over the years.We need to remove trees not on the left of #15 as you suggested,but on the right to open up the tee shot away from the green.But i still appreciate your passion.

Wayne

I prefer to focus my efforts on what Flynn did at RG,rather than on what he might do there today.When i have finished getting us back to where he put us i will move on.I say again that i am amazed at how much better things were.All we need to do is restore first and update second.
Don't you worry ,i'll keep doing what i'm doing and you keep doing what you're doing and we will all be better for it.

I also agree we need to have disagreements;this stuff is all about educated guesses.My frustration comes from dealing with strongly held views that are not educated.

« **Reply #33 on:** May 09, 2004, 08:31:35 PM »

Mike--

The work that you and Wayne and the Green Committee at Rolling Green is to be commended. That's quite a golf course and I hope that all of the tees that they want to put in are eventually. That 10th will be quite a match play hole at 260 yards and as you know that tee is in Flynn's plans. It would be hard to put together a more difficult and interesting two shot, three shot, and one shot stretch than 8, 9, and 10 at Rolling Green.

I do like the putting a bunker in about 50 yards short of #7 when the trees are removed. I'm sure it will be in Flynn's style and not Chip MacDonald's and it will enhance the hole and create just enough optical illusion to make the hole really interesting. Certainly Flynn has placed bunkers well short of greens, #10 at Lehigh being most notable. He also put a pair of bunkers in a similar position on #7 at Plymouth (NC) Country Club.

I haven't played RG enough to comment on #1. However, I do remember that chip from the right side being quite tough.

« **Reply #34 on:** May 10, 2004, 07:34:41 AM »

"redanman
Your insistence on further tree removal on the left side of#15 at RGGC motivated me to go back and do more research.I found a similarity betwen #15 and #7.Both have trees that were on the property that Flynn chose to keep.Both of these tree lines protect parallel holes.Both have creeks on the opposite side of these trees,which are the preferred landing places.Both have had trees planted on the inappropriate side over the years.We need to remove trees not on the left of #15 as you suggested,but on the right to open up the tee shot away from the green.But i still appreciate your passion."

Mike:

Now you're starting to think like an architect such as William Flynn! The point to concentrate on is William Flynn DID sometimes use trees in golf architecture for a variety of reasons. If you haven't seen what he said and wrote about that we can produce it for you. It's not about RGGC, it's general, but at least you can get the idea and essence of it. The right side of #15 is what should be cleared out and massively, if possible, but that'll probably be a real problem for you as there're some really big trees along that entire right side---and the left side too, unfortunately.

I'm not sure I agree with you, though, that the right side along the creek is the ideal strategic place to hit the tee shot on that hole. If one looks closely at the way that green is set up (bunkered) and oriented one should see the ideal or best place is to keep the tee ball very close to the treeline on the left and logically with a draw! In my opinon, the entire right side is the safer or bailout area (not the ideal place to come at that green from) and that is guarded fairly far out by the creek.

The only real problem with that hole is the trees along the left side are an OK architectural idea but the fact is they have grown way too tall (the progressive problem with using various types of trees in architecture--eg they sometimes get too large to preserve original hole strategies and design intentions) and too far out to the right sort of cutting down on what once was and should be the ideal strategic tee shot line (the idea would be to trim the right side of that left side treeline as much as possible).

Why did those trees on that hole grow the way they did? In my opinion, all one has to do to tell is just look at their trunks. Clearly so many trees were planted along both sides of that hole decades ago and in such close proximity to each other that basically all of them just shot straight up looking for light in a dense forest of shade. That's why most all those trees in that area have no branches on them for about their first fifty feet. The reason for that was clearly just a poor tree management plan when those trees were planted by the club many decades ago! The club probably should've planted about 1/10 of the trees they did in that area decades ago and those trees now would then work much better for the strategy that Flynn probably intended them to be used!

« **Reply #35 on:** May 10, 2004, 08:51:20 AM »

TEPaul

If one is on the left side of #15 they must carry the set of bunkers left and short of the green,the fairway slopes away to the right and the right greenside bunkers come more into play,the ridge in the green would also be played at an angle.From the center or right you have a straight look into the green.I believe the left side of #15 is like the left of #2 which you previously have said is a sucker way to go.
Some time after 1975(have that photo)RG did a wonderful job of trimming up the hardwoods all over the course.This helps the air flow,the agronomy,the views thru the course,and the recovery shot.All good.It was not how they were planted.

Now Tom let's get back to #7 bunker----Was out there last night----The crease some 50 yards short of middle of green is the one ,right?

So,what distance from the middle of the fairway should the left side of the bunker begin?How far to the right should it go?How deep?How much from front to back?How much fairway to the right of it?
My question from last night's walk is----should you be able to run the ball past the left side of that bunker and have it roll to the middle or left or right of the green?or do you have to carry it to get to the green?

« **Reply #36 on:** May 10, 2004, 09:54:27 AM »

Just a thought. How often have the architects documented their design intent for a course in general or specific holes? Or is there a tendency to impute their genius from personal preferences and experiences?

It would be instructive for the members and customers of a club, as well as for posterity, to have a nice book of documents, notes, drawings, etc. on the construction of a course. I had suggested this to the developer of Dallas National through a common acquaintance, though I don't know that it was done. I really like the idea of having a club historian and a small library, even at a public golf course. Something about teaching the children well.

« **Reply #37 on:** May 10, 2004, 12:33:36 PM »

Mike:

All wonderful questions regarding a bunker, it's placement size, depth etc on #7.

You know that hole far better than I do although we did look very carefully at that entire area and proposed placement area for that bunker a couple of months ago.

My general feeling about something like a bunker there is what does it accomplish and how does it look? A good guideline to me is---does it accomplish more and create more interest if it was there vs if it wasn't. By more interest we're only talking about more options, more interesting things for any golfer to consider and do by it's presence vs if it wasn't there.

Certainly there is very fine topography (right to left slope) in that area naturally without the bunker, and in a certain sense that area to the right of the green is probably the ideal area to hit the ball and bring it into the green.

Many times an area that's close to the ideal area to hit the ball is also the ideal area to place an obstacle hazard to intensify interest and shot execution. This is nothing much more that Behr's "line of charm" theory (to place an obstacle on or close to the golfer's "line of instinct" (where he'd ALMOST ideally like to hit the ball) to make the shot more interesting and challenging.

The left side of that bunker I'd think needs to only guard (and definitely not remove by being directly in it) that area where a golfer could run a ball JUST past the left side of the bunker and filter it straight onto the green. The left side of that bunker certainty should NOT take that area AWAY from the golfer or it'd only serve to negate a really good option of coming as close to danger (bunker) as possible for the ideal shot in!

As to hitting the ball over the bunker and filtering it onto the green that should be ideally preserved as an option too obviously. For that the bunker, particularly the middle and right side of it needs to consider the toporaphy (slope) in that area. My recollection is the farther up the hillside on the right you go the more it slopes right to left and therefore the more the ball would caroom left the higher you go---that's all naturally ideal by the way--as golfers do sense this! What obstacle would guard going a little too far right and over that bunker? Obviously getting hung up there with very difficult next recovery onto the green with everything running away from you. The fairway line right and over that bunker should take that perfectly into consideration!

I think fifty yards seems too far out and too far short of the green to make these shots ideal, functional and effective. Perhaps 20-25 yards is more like it. The ball is generally not going to run for fifty yards anyway so that distance would mke the bunker too much short of the green and strategically not so effective!

I thought I noticed a natural crease right in that area (actually I think there're two natural creases along the right side). It'd be nice to put that bunkering into one of those natural creases but if neither are in the ideal area distance-wise, simply creating one in the ideal distance area would be an easy thing to do and of course Ron and a good shaper could do that to completely mimic those natural creases.

I hope you get the gist of the entire concept of all this---basically to create a bit more interest, intensity and challenge as well as thought than just the hillside which again in itself is interesting and functional just not quite so much as I'm sure you can imagine if a bunker was perfectly placed in that area to be challenged in numerous ways (options).

However, the flip side of all this is that bunker really does need to be of the perfect size, shape and placement to create the ideal interest and challenge to make more options not less. In anything like this, making a mistake in size, placement, depth, whatever, would only serve to shut down on the temptation of various choices. Shutting down the temptations of interesting options is never a good thing---working and designing to increase them is a good thing.

The depth of the bunker? I don't know, that's optional too. Again, I'd like to see a bunker there that's probably shallower rather than deeper as again, a shallower bunker just may increase the recovery options of trying to get out of it, also a good thing!

The right side of that proposed bunker can also be protected by a high side contour of very low profile to keep sheet drainage out of the bunker and perhaps also create some interesting playability in and of itself.

More, more, more effective and functional options not less is always a good rule of thumb. Getting them just right to be all functional but challenging and interesting somehow is the trick of it all!

« **Reply #38 on:** May 10, 2004, 12:42:54 PM »

redanman---thinking for yourself regarding the use of trees on golf courses is a fine idea if those golf courses aren't William Flynn's. When it comes to the use of trees occasionally on a Flynn golf course it'd probably be best to try to think about it the way Flynn did rather than the way you do!

If it's dramatically otherwise one then starts to assume you think you know more about what's good for a Flynn golf course than William Flynn did!

« **Reply #39 on:** May 10, 2004, 12:53:49 PM »

"The "splendid isolation" of Pine Valley's fairway corridors is just as big a mis-interpretation of an evolutionary process as is the proliferation of obscene greenery of ANGC."

Redanman:

I'm not certain what you mean by this remark. If you mean to say that Crump DID NOT want that splendid isolation by creating blocks to visibility between holes at PVGC you'd be entirely wrong. He did want that splendid isolation between holes.

However, he also created a routing (or Colt did on his directions) that took into consideration both hole width and using trees as a visibilty block. It just so happens that they have grown in far more than he intended.

« **Reply #40 on:** May 11, 2004, 08:47:41 AM »

To Jason Mandel:
You have no idea how right you are about your inquiry regarding the chairman of the RG green committee. These guys are literally insane.

« **Reply #41 on:** May 11, 2004, 09:35:06 AM »

Mr.Coleman
Who do think Jason was referring to ? And who are you referring to?

« **Reply #42 on:** May 11, 2004, 10:07:51 AM »

TEPaul
I am waiting for Mr.Coleman to say "we're talking about bunkers,just bunkers". But Tom you realize the devil is in the details.I think this is a very important bunker.
The fairway bunker on #11 was built just to the left of the ideal landing area but was moved into the landing area.Most people are baffled at the thought that a bunker was not intended to be in the landing area.We have been advised to get this bunker back where it belongs.
As for #7 i think the best place in relation to the middle of the fairway is far enough right to allow a runup to the green and the right side of the bunker would likely mean you miss the green to the right.At the 50 yard point the ground right of the bunker tends to make the ball go up the hill away to the right.At the 25 yard point the tendency is more to the left.So it makes a huge difference which distance is chosen.Also,at the 25 yard point it may not be possible to land beyond the bunker and stay on the green if there is fairway around the bunker.If the 50 yard distance is chosen the chance to roll on and stay is more likely.
Mind you ,i am not an expert on bunker placement but i see some problems here.We can screw up the bunker,i do not think we can screw up the land as it is.

« **Reply #43 on:** May 11, 2004, 10:29:42 AM »

Mike and Jim,

I hope everyone knows I said that in a joking manor

. It's great that these guys take so much pride in their course and the way it should or was intended to be played. But it has to start with a willing greens chair.

Redanman and Tom,

I took what Redanman wrote as the "Pine Valley" effect many courses in the Philadelphia area had. This refers to greens chairman after greenschairman getting some great deal on Pine or other christmas style trees and planting them profusely! I know it was done at our club and it just cost us a hell of a lot to get rid of it!

jason

« **Reply #44 on:** May 11, 2004, 11:11:32 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on May 10, 2004, 12:42:54 PM

If it's dramatically otherwise one then starts to assume you think you know more about what's good for a Flynn golf course than William Flynn did!

Tom -
I think you just made Mayday's case for him

« **Reply #45 on:** May 11, 2004, 01:36:19 PM »

Some of the interest in a bunker on #7 is to replace the hazard lost by the tree removal.However, the trees should never have been planted.The bunker can come in for much criticism if not done right and in my mind is a concession to those who believe the ground hazard that was designed,built ,and maintained for years is not adequate.
This discussion has me going back and forth;something in my gut says no bunker-Flynn did not do it,he did not do it later in conjunction with other changes,and IMHO he never would do it because the interest of the land is enough.Doing things that enhance the ground game makes sense to me---widen the fairway and extend it around the green to the back.But ,after saying i am okay with the bunker because i respect the opinions of so many well regarded people who have been there and see its need,i still think Flynn is telling me--"Leave it alone"
Why not have a hole like few others instead of attempting to replicate some other hole somewhere else ? Why add when there is no weakness to start with? I am not concerned about the "politics" of the bunker but i am afraid for the uniqueness of this hole.
This is not meant to be argumentative but to say you guys have not made your case to me.

« **Reply #46 on:** May 11, 2004, 01:41:46 PM »

Although it is against my better judgement, I will attempt to make the case for leaving some of the "newly planted" (that is, 30-40 year old) trees at RG.
RG is becoming obsolete. At 6,600 yards, the equipment is passing it by. Every, and I mean every, par four is being played with an 8 iron or less by the younger, better amateurs. Only one par five (9) is not reachable in two; the other three are being reached with seven irons or less. We could probably find an additional 200-250 yards if we had the stomach for it, but I suspect that our membership won't support it.
So, we are left with attending to a great but obsolete course. Flynn intended (and I see no reason why I shouldn't be as competant as anyone else to be presumptuous enough to declare what Flynn intended) that RG be a championship golf course. When you remove trees that right now penally (as opposed to creatively) penalize an errant shot, you make the course easier. To pretend otherwise is to pretend that the war in Iraq is going well. I'm sure there are those that so believe, but they've lost their objectivity. And forget about trying to reason with them.
Rolling Green does not need to get easier. If you miss a fairway on a short par 4, why should you have a clear shot to the green? Why can't there be a "penal" penalty for hitting a bad shot, rather than a "creative" penalty. Although taking trees out may be aesthetically and even architecturally preferable, we're playing a golf course here, not a coffee table book.
Part, if not most, of the fun of playing a great golf course is the satisfaction of shooting a good score on a difficult course. I suspect there are very few courses that
have course ratings below their pars and slopes below 125. Take the "new" trees away from 4, 5, 7, 12, 15 and 17 and 18 (as my friend Mayday would do), and you would have a photographically beautiful, architecturally perfect, easy golf course. Flynn would roll over in his grave.

« **Reply #47 on:** May 11, 2004, 02:02:46 PM »

Jim,
I will be the 1st, but almost certainly not the last to disagree with your statement regarding trees at RG. I know Flynn did use trees in his designs, mostly as a "chute" for tee shots, as is evident with a few holes at RG and also Philmont.

However, to suggest that taking out trees would make the course easier, is frankly wrong. Flynn provided plenty of challenge with his designs without using trees, an example of that would be the marvelous green complexes.

You may say having trees that are "penal" are ok, but I will disagree. Is spraying it a little right or wrong and ending up in a forest and having to chip out really golf? It is certainly not FUN! I know, my course (White Manor) was swamped with them and on many holes the only option or srtategy was to chip out.

Furthermore, I know there have been some turf issues in the past at RG, trees only hurt the health of turf.

To suggest you are as qualified as anyone on here to comment on here as what Flynn intended is, frankly wrong also. Tom Paul and Wayne Morrisson have been studying Flynn for their book for a couple of years now, and certianly would know more about Flynn's intentions than most.

Do you want a course that is fun, making the player think, and at the same time demanding, or do you want a course that is devoid of strategy, and borderline unfair just to bring scores up? When you spray the ball into the rough, the penalty is not being in the fairway, having a more difficult lie and usually more difficult approach shot.

RG is far from becoming an obsolete course at 6,600 yards. Is Pine Valley OBSOLETE at 6,600 yards?

I appreciate that you are a member at RG and care for your course very much, but while these guys may be a little obsesive about their course, they are doing it for the right reasons. Even Mayday

Jason Mandel

« **Reply #48 on:** May 11, 2004, 02:09:59 PM »

Jason:
I have only one question. Do you also think the war in Iraq is going well?

« **Reply #49 on:** May 11, 2004, 02:20:47 PM »

That was a mighty thoughtful response...by Jason.

My question would be how difficult would recovery from those areas be without the trees - no penalty for wrong angle approach? Quarter shot? Half shot? Full shot?

News:

Jason Mandel

mike_malone

mike_malone

wsmorrison

wsmorrison

TEPaul

ian

mike_malone

Adam_Messix

TEPaul

mike_malone

Lou_Duran

TEPaul

TEPaul

TEPaul

Jim_Coleman

mike_malone

mike_malone

Jason Mandel

Patrick Hitt

mike_malone

Jim_Coleman

Jason Mandel

Jim_Coleman

George Pazin