Wayne,

I think you'd like the 7th if you played it.  Its almost like the 17th at TPC, nowhere to miss really, except if you do there is still a chance for a recovery.  

Mike and Adam....great thread.

A great example of a bunkerless reverse "C", almost a "J", C of C.  

As I recall the woodlands course at Lawsonia plays over a quarry on the front nine. Is it possible that this would be the source of the aforementioned fill. As an aside there is a lovely home to the right of the 7th green that I unfortunately visited once while playing here.  Please keep me on the list next summer as both of Lawsonia's resortlike courses are some of my favorite public courses in WI.

Tom D

Thanks - we will take a good look at those mowing lines.

I will post the original design/ topo tomorrow.

 

The original design drawn on the existing topography.

PC - Anything to keep you around!

Another thing I like about this hole is the outside of the J (dogleg for those who have not updated to Paul Cowley's curves of charm) is the preferred route.

The inside sucks you into that hole and/or gives you a bad angle. Even the middle is tricky because of the sidehill lie (hook)

Mike:

Yes, the yellow line you drew was what I was trying to describe.  But it would be even better if you saw nothing but fairway on that last hill running down to the left, over the profile of the first bunker.  I'm sure that more players would be lured to the left that way.

Mike I would be interested in seeing where L/M drew the fairway lines.  Most L/M courses I have seen drawings of have very wide fairways (50-60 yds in most cases) so it wouldn't surprise me to see the fairway on the left along the tree line.  

On the other hand rough in that area causes balls to hang up on the down slope instead of gathering at the bottom of the hill.  I know I don't want to be there again!  Next time I will shoot for the upslope on the far right.  

Hard to tell from the overlays but to me it looks like the original left fairway line extends off the far left side of the bunker which would have it hugging or maybe even into the tree line a little.  In the photos the fairway cut is more off the right hand edge of the left bunker.  

Miguel:

Did you read that?

In that case, I don't want you spending more than ten minutes looking around that green for the cuts even if you're using your flashlight.

I want you to take that green apart tonight and see if there's a boxcar under it and I still want the report on my desktop first thing tomorrow morning.


Wayno, you pissboy, if you happen to be reading this thread I want you to get out to Merion tonight and take the 3rd green apart to find out once and for all if it's built on the foundations of a Pennsylvania bank barn.

And I want your report on my desktop first thing tomorrow morning!

Who got Tom Paul fired up, and how did they do it?

He's the very model of a modern major CEO!  

Quote from: Tom_Doak on December 26, 2007, 08:50:23 PM

Mike:

Thanks for posting the hole at West Bend.  Something new to talk about!  How far is it from Milwaukee?  I'll try to get there next summer.

The only thing I don't like about the photos are the mowing lines.  I think it's okay to pinch the fairway somewhere, but in your picture from the tee, I hate how the mowing line is going across one horizon on the left side and then it reappears on the next ridge in a different spot.  My associates would have tried to make those lines go away entirely, or if they couldn't, to make them on the same plane as viewed from the tee, so the depth perception is much more difficult to read.  A small detail, but it adds to the naturalism.

I appreciate the value of naturalism, but perhaps everyone can chime in with whether they (you) prefer making depth perception more difficult to read, and especially your reasons for or against.

Pardon the stupid questions but...

Do you believe elements that confound you the golfer make the game more or less enjoyable?  Would you care if you thought nature had caused the problem as opposed to man?  What if you thought nature had caused the problem but then you found out it was man made?  Would that change your opinion on whether it was / is acceptable? Why?

In another post Tom Doak describes how to "lure" golfers more to the deathly left: do you appreciate such efforts by architects?  Why, and can you explain how your answer illuminates your underlying philosophy towards how courses should be designed, especially as regards "naturalism"?

Thanks,
Mark

Mark

Naturalism is rather odd in that both deception and clarity are probably offered in equal measure if the archie really gets it right.  I am very impressed when I think an archie utillizes a feature which causes deception, makes a shot interesting, or even if it causes a great interplay with another seemingly simple feature.  

I site this example a lot, but the 7th at Burnham is one of the very best examples of using simple features to cause havoc in a hole.  The interplay between the fairway length ridge, the lone bunker and the water is fantastic.  The hole lures people in as a blah hole because they aren't paying attention to the questions the archie is asking.  

I could play holes like this all day long.  Its a shame most archies aren't building them.  For some reason they feel the need to dress up this sort of golf in an effort to wow people.


Greens and approaches like this are why I play the game.


Ciao