[mike_malone]

 It also looks like they shaved  a little off the right edge of the first left greenside bunker on #4. These are  the seemingly little details Ron and Jim are returning to these Flynn courses. I like it.
 

[JNagle]

Mayday -

The new bunker on the 6th hole is in-fact the reinstating of a fore bunker cut into the hillside of #6.  The bunker right of the green was removed and fairway was restored.  Golfers can again use the right hillside to approach hole locations on the right side.  

Joe -

The green expansion and reconstruction of the 4th green was due to the severe side slope to the left.  It was very difficult to hold a shot and well struck balls were often times rolling of the left side.    This green was enlarged to account for the decreased slope and to allow us to provide some counter slope to hold the ball, plus we needed to get a little undulation back in the green horizon.  The shot required on this hole necessitated a larger green.  Other green expansions are returning greens closer to the greenside hazards as well as roll-off areas that were present in the early photos.  This provides variety around the greens.  Many of the greens at Mannies have limited cupping areas because of how much they have shrunken and the middles of the greens are where most of the steep slopes are.  

We are now in the planning stages to bring back the upper 18th green.  Should be great.

The tree removal at Mannie's is without question ABSOLUTELY necessary.  Many of the trees will be books, bats, hockey sticks and fireplace logs in the near future.

[wsmorrison]

The bunker in the hillside on 6 was restored to its original location.  It is vastly superior to the recently removed bunker.  The regained contour on the right will allow a runup shot to that tricky green.

I am very fond of Forse and Nagle's plan and Scott May's ability to implement it over time.  The results to date bear this out.  As much as we'd like to see it all done at once, the work will be over time as a result of budget constraints.  At least the master plan is in place and a capable superintendent is overseeing the work.  

Kudos to the membership and staff of Manufacturers!  Mannies, even more so than Rolling Green has a lot of tree work to do.  Both clubs are doing an excellent job at removal.

I wish RGGC would wait a season before planting new trees (at least they aren't evergreens) in or near the location of the eliminated trees.  It would be nice to see how it plays and looks before the money is spent.  Who knows?  They might like it that way.

Thanks for posting, Jim.  Great job, as usual!

[Kyle Harris]

Joe,

I feel you are assuming that the size of the putting green, and the size of the "pinnable and holdable" areas of the putting green are one in the same when they are not necessarily.

Keep in mind that my argument is based on "larger greens" that fit with the surrounds and not necessarily large greens that are arbitrarily placed. The greens in question were initially this size, only to shrink due to any number of factors including budget, incompetence, or both.

In the case of a hole like 15 at Manufacturer's, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 at PSU White and the 8th hole at Huntingdon Valley, green expansion has/could allow for hole locations to he placed on the periphery of flat areas, bring surrounding contour features into play, which when mowed as green or even fairway provides a stiffer challenge for both the short game and approach shot, since a misstruck shot is more liable to run into trouble and in a more awkward situation.

This is hardly categorical, and all depends on the blending of bunkers, greens, fairways and contour through maintenance - but if the joints are there, larger greens can provide, in my opinion, a more complete challenge.

[TEPaul]

"The green expansion and reconstruction of the 4th green was due to the severe side slope to the left.  It was very difficult to hold a shot and well struck balls were often times rolling of the left side.    This green was enlarged to account for the decreased slope and to allow us to provide some counter slope to hold the ball, plus we needed to get a little undulation back in the green horizon.  The shot required on this hole necessitated a larger green."

Jimbo Baby:

That just might be the smoothest and the most clever explanation and description of green "softening" I ever heard.

That's so smooth it reminds me of the time in "The Sting" when Newman and Redford and the girl (the highly talented pickpocket/hooker) swiped the wallet off the big mark from NYC on the train to Chicago, then Newman beat the shit out of the mark in a rigged poker game and humiliated the mark when he couldn't pay (since Newman used his money in the first place in the rigged poker game).

You are Da Man!

Oh Hell, I'm just joshing! That is a helluva description for a green reworking, though.

On the other hand, you and Ron are getting way too coddling of golfers for even thinking to do that on the 4th green.

I woulda cut down every single tree that remained as part of that old chute coming out of that tee on #4 and forced all the golfers to hit a big old high cut shot into the 4th green the way it used to be. If they couldn't manage to do that then the hell with 'em---let their unfinessed and miserable little golf ball fall off the left side of the green!

[wsmorrison]

"I woulda cut down every single tree that remained as part of that old chute coming out of that tee on #4 and forced all the golfers to hit a big old high cut shot into the 4th green the way it used to be. If they couldn't manage to do that then the hell with 'em---let their unfinessed and miserable little golf ball fall off the left side of the green!"

I have to agree with you here, Tom.  There is a shot that was meant to be tested on this hole (fade) and it is being unmade by having the green enlarged and slope added to help hold shots.  The same approach was taken on the 2nd and 3rd greens at Huntingdon Valley (even worse actually) and hurt the original design intent of both holes.  In the case of the HVCC greens it was not about needed expansion for wear and tear.  It does allow for more pin positions but too much was sacrificed in the design of the holes.  Now I don't know enough about the green at Manufacturers to know if there was too much wear and tear and not enough pin positions for the amount of play it gets, but I agree the shot demand is eliminated in favor of hackers everywhere.  Is that a good thing?  I don't believe so if the green was big enough for wear and tear.  Was it a hard hole with the smaller green?  Yes, but Manufacturers was meant to be a challenging test of golfers.

[JNagle]

Wayne and Tommy -

A cut is still needed on this hole.  The predominant slope is still right to left, just to a lesser degree.  We have been told that there is still some concern that balls may roll of the left edge.  That may be in-fact due to being able to cup closer to the edge of the green.  The counter slope was only added in the area of the bunker.  The rest of the green falls left.  It could be said that the green is more fair, but not that much EASIER.

[Kyle Harris]

Uhh, not sure which green you guys remember, but the one today is just NASTY on the left side regardless. I'd say anything landing in the left half of the green with even a hint of a draw or straightness to it is going left in a hurry.

Yeah, there's a lot more room there, but that's just more room to build up momentum.

[Andy Scanlon]

I wish RGGC would wait a season before planting new trees (at least they aren't evergreens) in or near the location of the eliminated trees.  It would be nice to see how it plays and looks before the money is spent.  Who knows?  They might like it that way.

Wayne:  My sentiments exactly!

[wsmorrison]

Andy,

I have yet to go over there to take a look at the trees planted between 2 and 4, but man it looked great without any.  If any at all were planted, it should have been up the hill between 40-80 yards short of the green as per Flynn's plan.  I have a feeling they are further down the hill than that.  I hope not and also hope they are not in a line.

Jim,

You are quite the diplomat.  I certainly will withold further judgement until I see the work in person and see it in play.  Kyle, you should also wait to see it in play before you determine what will happen with different shots to the green.  Sometimes the eyes deceive, especially on some Flynn holes (3 at RGGC).

Shot testing is a design feature that does not get enough consideration.  Tom Paul alerted me to it and I see it on a number of Flynn courses.  Maybe it is not widespread but it is something that can be identified with Flynn and with some of the Philadelphia architects of that era.

[Kyle Harris]

Andy,

I have yet to go over there to take a look at the trees planted between 2 and 4, but man it looked great without any.  If any at all were planted, it should have been up the hill between 40-80 yards short of the green as per Flynn's plan.  I have a feeling they are further down the hill than that.  I hope not and also hope they are not in a line.

Jim,

You are quite the diplomat.  I certainly will withold further judgement until I see the work in person and see it in play.  Kyle, you should also wait to see it in play before you determine what will happen with different shots to the green.  Sometimes the eyes deceive, especially on some Flynn holes (3 at RGGC).

Wayne,

I had a few balls with me that were breaking pretty hard, even though the sod seams haven't fully healed yet.   The slope gets to be as much as 4-6% on the left.

Back left is built up a bit more, though.

[wsmorrison]

I didn't know you were hitting balls.  Was the ground somewhat frozen or was it a bit damp?  The weather seemed to change a bit today.  I still think the green didn't need to be changed.

By the way, did you find what you were looking for at the Hagley?

[TEPaul]

"Uhh, not sure which green you guys remember, but the one today is just NASTY on the left side regardless. I'd say anything landing in the left half of the green with even a hint of a draw or straightness to it is going left in a hurry."

Kyle:

The one I remember is the one that's been there for the last 20 years if not from the beginning. Sure it slopped right to left bigtime and it used to be narrow too but I sure don't remember that it was close to unplayable when the greens were really fast. It was nothing as intense as trying to get a ball to the back shelf on #9 or the 17th green if your approach had too much spin on it.

I do remember hitting a putt or chip from just off the green on the fringe or just into the rough on #4 a lot of times but in my opinion that wasn't a bad play at all. I think I even birdied it a few times like that. That chute used to be really narrow but whenever I played that hole I always used to try to hit a little bit of a draw believe it or not, and the green was obviously narrower and more sloped than it is now.

I'll tell you right now if Manny's is even thinking of running green speeds on that course even a whisker higher than a real 11 they are nuts. That golf course just does not need that at all to be very challenging to any level of golfer, even touring pros.

[Kyle Harris]

I didn't know you were hitting balls.  Was the ground somewhat frozen or was it a bit damp?  The weather seemed to change a bit today.  I still think the green didn't need to be changed.

By the way, did you find what you were looking for at the Hagley?

Wayne, sorry, wasn't clear. Just rolling balls on the green, no hitting them.

Tom:

I've played the course once back in May and don't quite remember the green all too well. I hit it in the regulation and had a fairly benign two putt par from the back of the green to the back right hole location. I was playing through the pro and his playing lesson so I didn't get to stop and smell the roses, as it were.

I still think this green will provide sufficient challenge based on what I saw today.

[wsmorrison]

Kyle,

Any photos of the bunker changes on 3 green?

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

Any photos of the bunker changes on 3 green?

No. I didn't have a good comparable photo from last year and I believe there is still some work to be done.

Scott asked me to come back a bit into the season and do a more thorough photographing of the changes.

[John Gosselin]

Kyle, are they using any aerial photos of the course from it's earlier days for the bunker work as far as size and shape?

If a restoration, should you rebuild the bunkers as they would have been in the beginning or should you pay attention to how bunkers evolve with the green surrounds over an eighty year period? In other words, should these features be treated like a fine antique and to completely strip and make look new again would be considered a mistake. What does an eighty year old, properly maintained, Flynn bunker look like? Are there any examples out there?  

[wsmorrison]

John,

Tom and I have had this discussion with a lot of architects and superintendents.  A critical point you bring up (I think) and one that should be discussed at length, maybe on its own thread, is whether or not evolutionary sand build up (from sand splash) should be removed in restorations or retained.

I believe, as does Tom, that the evolutionary buildup should be kept as long as it doesn't throw things too far out of balance that the green cannot be held.

Take for instance the fronting bunkers at 8 and 13 at Merion.  Clearly there has been several FEET of sand splash built up.  If the club wanted to return back to a specific point in time where the lip was at Bob Jones's waist and not above his head, they would've had to remove quite a bit of earth.  The green would be more exposed to the tee shot and thus lose its bit of mystery as one walks from tee to green to discover the results of the approach ( or tee shot (13).  I like that uncertainty.  If the slope off the fronting bunker was removed, with the green speeds of today, it would likely result in a lot of putts going into the bunkers.  We think (sorry for speaking for you, Tom) that technology evolves, why shouldn't golf courses?  There is a certain aged look with this sort of evolution and I think it looks and plays great.

At the Cascades, we were anxious to keep the evolutionary buildup.  The superintendent, Doug Miller, heartedly agreed and so it has been retained.

There is a compelling argument to go back to the original integration of bunker and green.  But who knows if the architect had the foresight to realize there would be a build-up over time?  That and the more intriguing shot demands tip the scale in my mind to leave the evolutionary build-up.

As for properly maintained Flynn bunkers.  Those at Shinnecock, Indian Creek, Cherry Hills, Rolling Green, and other courses have changed over the years.  In most regards I think the bunkers at The Country Club in Brookline represent the best look of aged Flynn Bunkers.  Kittansett bunkers are pretty true to form as well.  Must be the those frugal New Englanders!  The fairway bunkers at Philadelphia Country Club  are also excellent examples.  I believe the greenside bunkers at PCC had the evolutionary build-up reduced.

[mike_malone]

#4RG---start at 100 yards and 40 yards from middle of fairway----5 trees--two fully grown "scooches" (sp) ( that's what Charlie called them)-looked like dogwoods to me--- and a red oak--40 feet high---. plus at least one maple. They are  not in a straight line but sort of diagonal heading toward #2 tee.There are 30 yards of space from the bottom of the slope on the right to the first tree.

    A good player can now decide to go right. He may need to choose a lesser club than a driver. And the wildly missed shot doesn't have the wide open shot it used to have.

    I like the result. You boys need to understand that compromises get made. And in this case the only way the evergreens were going was with a planting of hardwoods .

Get off your ---- and go see for yourself. Then call someone about getting rid of the cart path. I'm a step ahead of you.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle, are they using any aerial photos of the course from it's earlier days for the bunker work as far as size and shape?

If a restoration, should you rebuild the bunkers as they would have been in the beginning or should you pay attention to how bunkers evolve with the green surrounds over an eighty year period? In other words, should these features be treated like a fine antique and to completely strip and make look new again would be considered a mistake. What does an eighty year old, properly maintained, Flynn bunker look like? Are there any examples out there?  

John,

The aerials are actually quite stunning. They have a bunch from before the time when ANY tree was on the property (the corridors were quite wide) and just after the rows of pine trees were planted.

Based on the aerials, it would seem that the Forse group is basing the bunker work from there. The shapes of those around 4 are pretty well exact to what is on the aerial. Same goes for the changes to 6 and the upcoming changes to 7.

[TEPaul]

"What does an eighty year old, properly maintained, Flynn bunker look like? Are there any examples out there?"

JohnG;

That's a most interesting question---and a most interesting way to phrase it.

Obviously, the key words, which probably need to be defined somehow, are 'properly maintained'.

Would that mean the way they looked originally or the way they evolved over time somehow? We certainly know that can be very different. Bunker-wise, probably the best examples of how different that can be is Merion East from the beginning to around the 1930s and then into say the 1970s under Richie Valentine.

So what does a club pick? I guess it always will be a judgement call depending on a whole slew of factors.

But the far more interesting question to me is---once the decision is made as to what look the club wants, it's much more doable today to "hold" that "look" through time through applied maintenance practices for that purpose. I don't think that kind of thing was ever thought of before in golf architecture or maintenance practices.

At Aronomink, John, you are just the guy to be able to do that really well, in my opinion. I think you totally understand it and know exactly how it can be done in an on-going maintenance context.  

[Bill Shotzbarger]

The work at MGCC looks great. I can't wait to play the course restored.

Now, 360 trees per season? That's a lot! Did scott mention how many they have on the golf course? I know it has to be a huge number.

[Kyle Harris]

Bill, I have no idea how many are left, he still hasn't touched the area around 12, 13, 14 and 16 yet, nor between 10 and 18.

This years work seemed to focus around the clubhouse, the first hole, the areas shown in the pictures, 2 and 3 and the 7th green.

The clubhouse work alone has opened up many views, both from the clubhouse and from the course to the clubhouse. I think right now he is focused on the areas where the greens are most affected so he can get them expanded where they should be.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

Did you see what Mayday said above? Do you want to see if we can get him to meet us for dinner at a diner TONIGHT?? You bring a 1 iron and I'll bring a dogwood branch and we'll make mincemeat out of him while he's trying to eat his applesauce.

[John Gosselin]

Kyle, Wayne and Tom know exactly where I was going with my post. I am in the believe that what makes great old golf courses unique is not only the original architecture, but also how some of the features evolve over time.

IMHO If you truly try and put the bunkers back to the exact depth, shape, and grade as when they were built than you really need to restore the entire green and surrounds. They evolved together and to undo all those years of wear and tear on one adjoining feature and not touch the other creates an awkward transition or tie-in. As Wayne points out #8 and #13 at Merion are great examples on how the sand splash has not only changed the grade around the top of the bunker but also much of the green surface.

I was just curious what approach Mannys was taking.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()