News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Please note, each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us and we will be in contact.


Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Stonewall vs Stonewall
« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2005, 07:10:42 PM »
If you're interested, Bulltown was an old settlement near the intersection of 401 and 345.  In fact, PA345 is called 'Bulltown Road'.

Elverson, PA (19520) is the post office that serves the area.

Hope that helps...


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Stonewall vs Stonewall
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2005, 05:34:31 PM »
Matt:  Maybe someday I'll feel like giving ratings to the rest of my courses, and publishing it so you and others can buy a copy.  For now I'm out of that business.  I think most single-digit handicappers would prefer the challenge of the old course, and most others would prefer the variety of the new; I could lean either way depending on how I'm playing.

Sean:  Some of the tees have settled a bit; others were just so small that ten years of foot traffic has roughed them up considerably.  The contractor built them as small as possible to "save maintenance costs."   ;)

Scott:  Fazio's original position for the sixth tee was about thirty yards farther back on the side of the hill, and the green would have been up closer to the current 7th tee.  Jay Sigel said he thought it would be a 2-iron tee shot and a 3-wood second, and he encouraged us to turn it into a long carry over the creek off the tee.  I don't even know if Jay was thinking of providing the alternate fairway to the right, but I built it anyway, and I usually hit a 1-iron over there and a 4-iron to the green myself.

The sixteenth tee position was always as it is today.  One little-known fact about the course is that a high-pressure gas line runs across the 2nd, 12th, 13th, 14th and 16th holes -- about 125 yards in front of the tee on sixteen, so it was impossible to consider any earthwork to make those more visible.  The distance from the gas line to Route 345 guaranteed that there would be some "up and over" holes.

The ninth, tenth and 18th holes were actually backwards on Fazio's plan ... 18 would have been a par 5 that started from the tenth green, played down toward the tenth tee, and then doglegged hard left to a green by the ninth tee on the water.  [His tenth hole would have been back up the current 18th.]  When I went to interview for the job, I asked how they would stop players from playing Fazio's 18th hole backwards down his tenth [my 18th] fairway ... apparently no one had ever considered that.  I think it's one of the reasons I got the job; the other reason was that I shared with them a copy of The Confidential Guide, and they liked what I had to say.

None of this is meant to pick on Tom Fazio's design for Stonewall ... in truth, if he'd stayed involved and done the job, I'm sure he would have reconsidered some of the same things that I changed.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2005, 05:36:18 PM by Tom_Doak »

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Stonewall vs Stonewall
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2005, 10:47:35 PM »
Tom,

That's great stuff.  The kind of inside info that makes this site great, such as why some holes had to be a certain way due to underground gas lines.

My last question.  Were you tied to the rest of Fazio's routing, other than 9, 10, & 18?  If so, why?  Past a certain point in the building process?  Or did you like the routing with the few changes you implemented?

TEPaul

Re:Stonewall vs Stonewall
« Reply #28 on: March 17, 2005, 07:49:50 AM »
"I don't even know if Jay was thinking of providing the alternate fairway to the right, but I built it anyway, and I usually hit a 1-iron over there and a 4-iron to the green myself."

TomD:

That's an interesting story about the suggestion by Sigel of turning the 6th hole into a par 4 with a long carry over the creek. But if Sigel suggested that and it's true he then never even suggested that right fairway (you said you put it in anyway) that's one of the best example's I've ever heard of why a guy like Sigel would probably not be a very good complete golf architect!! If that hole did not have that right fairway for the back tee that great hole would be now known as an unmitigated disaster!! That hole without that right fairway would be what I call a virtual "disconnect"! The tee Sigel suggested on #13 and is presumably still there is a virtual "disconnect" too, in my opinion, and it should be obsoleted! I bet today it's virtually never used.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Stonewall vs Stonewall
« Reply #29 on: March 17, 2005, 12:51:04 PM »
Tom P:  I think Jay just figured we'd build more forward tees at the sixth so everyone could carry the stream.  When I asked him how far he was confident of carrying the ball every time, he told me 235 yards, so we originally built the tee for a 245-yard carry; but with the prevailing wind and the downhill, even Rand Middleton was busting it over the stream no problem.  So I built the back tee, which is actually a 265-yard carry to the start of the left fairway.

Scott:  No construction had been done on the course when I got involved, but they did have grading permits based on Fazio's original routing.  The change to 9-10-18 was okay because we did a lot less grading on those holes as a result, but I was asked to employ most of the original routing so they wouldn't have to re-file for permits, which would have taken another 6-12 months.  I tried to look at alternative routings and could never come up with anything much different anyway ... with the clubhouse in place and the entrance road dividing the site in two, there weren't a lot of different ways to solve the puzzle ... but it's always difficult to come up with an original routing once another solution has been burned into your brain.  The one hole I don't know if I would have come up with is the par-4 eighth ... you pretty much had to come back that way, but we had to do almost 100,000 cubic yards of earthmoving to make that hole work, and I might never have tried if I didn't have to.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back