[Jim_Coleman]

   Mike C:
      I'm at Casa de Campo for 3 months where, fortunately, Zanax is sold over the counter.  Otherwise, Morrison's pictures might drive me over the edge.
    Just kidding.  I get a bad rap on the tree issue.  I don't think a single tree has been removed from Rolling Green that hasn't improved the course.  I don't believe, however, that denuding is the answer to all "classic course" problems.  There are some strategic tress that are admittedly ugly but add to the challenge of the course.  Remove the admittedly hideous trees on right side of 4 and and huge 50 yard slice leaves a better shot that one in the fairway.  The two little pines on 12 (which I happen to think aren't ugly; they'd be called "windswept treasures" at Cypress) again protect against a bad slice leaving an easy flip wedge.  The trees on 7 are really ugly, but give me Morrison's bunker for some protection. And don't tell me that growing penal rough is the answer.  First, RG members won't tolerate penal rough)  And second, if you replace a tree with some kind of penal (say fescue) rough, are you  increasing options or just lost balls and wedge-outs.
    I'm afraid many of you boys would rather photograph a course than play it.  I, for one, don't think the boys at Augusta are insane.  You may disagree with them, but they have a legitimate point of wiew.
    I'm at a course down here that recently underwent a major renovation 35 years after it's originall design.  The Teeth has dozens of new bunkers; several totally changed greens (both in location and contour); many new shot angles created (esp. #18); and substantial additional yardage.  All you strict constructionists would undoubtedly opine that the original archtect's intent has been eviscerated to adjust for new equipment.  If he wanted the greens like they are now, that's the way he would have built them.  If he wanted a bunker accross the 18 fairway, he'd have put it there originally.  If he wanted #4 to be a dogleg, he'd have built it that way.   But wait a minute.  The original architect IS the guy making the changes.  Maybe Flynn, Ross et al. might change their courses substantially if they had the chance today.  In fact, I for one have no doubt that they would.
    Is choking courses with trees good?  No.  Is using trees judiciously to help add to the challenge of a course?  You betcha.  Is it sometimes necessary to trade archtectural perfection (read picture taking) for improving the playing challenge (and, in my opinion, fun) of a course.  I say yes.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I've long thought that the trees behind 16 green should be substantially if not completely removed.  The turf problems on this green have been continuous.  Recent testing determined that the ph of the soil is 5.2!  So that has a lot to do with it.  But even though hundreds of trees have been removed on the hillside above and to the right of the green (a few added by the way) there is still not enough air circulation and not enough overall daylight.

If the trees behind 16 green were removed, the open site would look marvelous with the green sitting perfectly on the point.  Not only that, but it would then be easy to take down the current back tee on 17 (horribly man-made with steep sides all around; laser level but out of place on a classic course) and replaced with one on grade and just to the left along the line of play.  It would make 17 a wonderful penultimate hole.

[mike_malone]

 Jim,

     I remember when we both were on the green committee and you were in charge of "trees" and I was in charge of "cart paths". I can't remember one SINGLE tree you recommended for removal or planting for that matter. So, I think you have been dragged kicking and screaming through this process.

     I am glad you laid out here what you think ; it enables me to counter instead of you always getting that chance. You see these things from the point of view of your game.
 
    How about the fact that on #4 a shorter hitter who goes right is on a sidehill/ downhill with 150-170+ to the green. The trees eliminate Flynn's challenge there. The trees we took down a few years ago have added some fun and challenge to #4. After looking at this Flynn stuff for years I just realized this last week-the right side over the hiil is the goal! In fact, I had a conversation with Dave Staebler about this and he had an awakening as well. This is how it should work. Study and learn.

    The fact of the matter is that hitting over that hill on #4 is the ideal shot! If we move the fairway back where it belongs than this will be obvious. If we plant trees farther up the hill where Flynn had them in his plan , the long hitters who go too far right will have severe difficulty getting on the green and will certainly have enormous trouble hitting to the part of the green they want.

  THE POINT IS THAT EVERGREEN TREES ELIMINATE ALL CREATIVITY IN DEVELOPING CHALLENGES ON GOLF COURSES WHEN THEY COME INTO PLAY.

  They are the tactic used by low budget courses that have no ambition to be considered "great" or in your words "championship".


   On #12 how about the short hitter who lands in the FAIRWAY on the right side and cannot get to the right side of the green? Challenge the balls that go your distance , but not the old guy who hit it in the fairway. What is wrong with the existing deep bunker, the blind and narrow green  (wait until it is firm again!) and the big dropoff on the right ?

  No good architect would put evegreen trees directly in front of the hazards he designed!

   Flynn did and would change the course , but according to his values which treasure the "recovery" shot.

    When the trees were down in the left landing area on #7 the only reasonable shot most of the time was to punch out short of the creek. Now many more are trying to hook a wood around the remaining tree and trying to get on the green. My view is that the present example is more fun and more challenging. Flynn wrote of his disdain for punchout shots. I happen to be a member of one of his best designed courses. And so are you. You need to learn more about his ideas and depend less on your own personal experience.

[Mark Studer]

Wayne and TEAM Rolling Green- Congratuations on a great start.      As Ben Franklin said,"Well begun is half done."   Your course was built on property that is just plain fun to walk , let alone being able to see some(occasionally) good golf shots pulled off.    ALWAYS respect the opposing viewpoints about tree "management" .  Tell them that you can understand their opinion , but your plan is "just to help our new superintedent get some sunlight  to that turfgrass".   Continued good luck "managing" your conifers.- Mark

[redanman]

I'm at Casa de Campo for 3 months where, fortunately, Zanax (sic) is sold over the counter.  Otherwise, Morrison's pictures might drive me over the edge.

-That's Xanax.  Know what you're getting!

I don't believe, however, that denuding is the answer to all "classic course" problems.
-Denuding conifers [bIS[/b].  That is the single tree-management issue that can make a real impact on a course.  Shading of critical areas (tees, greens) is the other where coniferi and decidui and the famous shrubbery need to just plain go.

Is choking courses with trees good?  No.
-agreed

Is using trees judiciously to help add to the challenge of a course?  You betcha.
-Depends on your definition of "judiciously"  

Is it sometimes necessary to trade archtectural perfection (read picture taking) for improving the playing challenge (and, in my opinion, fun) of a course.  I say yes.
-Expand on that one, please

...and making sure that you're getting Xanax and not that Zanax stuff.....
 

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

The ideas you expressed to me while we enjoyed our day together, are being implemented by Charlie Carr.  Your experiences on committees and the work manifested helped shape the approach being used and the results are a joy to behold.  Thanks for your wise advise and setting an example for others to follow.  Your trailblazing is leading us to the clearing, literally!  As you say, it is a TEAM effort and the team is firing on all cylinders.  Hope to see you on either side of the state over the course of the new year.

Best regards,
Wayne

[mike_malone]

 Mark,

   In my recent email to the green cmte. I attempted to address the concerns of the guys who don't want the course to be perceived as easier and thus lessen our standing. I agree we need to do that.
    But one on one with Jim on this site is too much to resist.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Bill,

It could very well be Zanax that he's getting, some cheap imitation (hey, it's OTC, a sign right there, also it's a 'furren' country).  My last time there, I do recall feeling a little funny from the Prosac and Xantac I got at the local Rx.

[wsmorrison]

Anyone remember Mandrex?  It made sitting on top of the pyramids in Palenque pretty cool at night  

[Jim_Coleman]

   Zanax/Xanax; iceberg/Ginsburg; it's all the same.  For those of you who don't know the joke to this punchline, sorry.
     R-man:
         I guess the best example of trading architectural perfection for golf enjoyment/challenge would be Augusta.  I suspect that those boys down there would prefer not to significantly change their masterpiece.  But when guys are blowing sliced drivers off the tee on #15 and hitting 8 irons, something had to be done.  This was not the way the hole was intended to be played.  So they planted a bunch of ugly pines in the "new landing area" to restore the hole.  They traded archtectural perfection for playabilty.
    As more MM's observation that his changes will make the course more enjoyable for the guy who hits it 180 off the tee AT THE EXPENSE of the better players, I'm sorry, that's BAD ARCHITECTURE.  There are some doglegs, carries, etc. that the weak player simply can't negotiate.  Can the weak player play #16 at Merion?  #14 at PV, #2 at PV, etc.  Is the solution to dummy those holes down at the expense of the top players?  No.  These are championship courses and should be maintained as such.  The weak players know who they (we) are and still enjoy playing the great courses.  They (we) also know we can't play all the holes the way the big boys do.  But we still enjoy the experience.
   One of the main jobs the Green Committe has at RG is resisting the temptation to mediocritize the course to accomodate the "weak" players.

[mike_malone]

  Jim,

   #13 at RG is a good example of where the lesser player usually needs to layup in two. I would not change that; that is how it is intended.  One of the things that encourages a vibrant membership at RG is the fact that there aren't forced carries on tee shots.

    But, #12 is designed as the ONLY hole where the lesser player has a short second shot. The intended challenge is if they are on the right side of the fairway they need to carry the bunker  This is plenty of challenge. The trees just cover up the multiple challenges at the green that can be addressed in several ways with a single hazard with one shot. THAT IS BAD ARCHITECTURE!

    If you want to be creative and challenge the better player to hit more club on #12, I suggest you look into what Flynn did . He removed the left fairway bunker and put the right ones in   sometime before the early 1930's photos.  This encourages more shots to the outside of the dogleg.
    If we got rid of that left bunker more good players would try to get to that ideal landing area. If they miss  far to the right then the creek comes into play. If they go too long there is a creek back there as well. If they go straight they get the downhill lie for a less than full swing wedge. Right now the better players on average just layup short of the bunkers for a full wedge; not good architecture. Looking forward ,as teeballs go even farther, the elimination of the trees will encourage more to go for the green!

  #4 has a simple solution---move the tee back for the blue tees so that only the best shots make it over that hill. By taking some fairway away from the left and extending the creek out to the edge of the left fairway it pushes more shots onto the sloped side of the fairway. BTW that would just be returning the right side of the fairway to its original place.

   Or we could just do what lesser courses would do--- evergreens !

     I think we need to be very creative in our analysis to find ways to increase the challenge for the better player, not hurt the lesser player in the process, and do it in a "Flynnish" way. You may like what they have done at Augusta but I want to keep all changes at RG in the spirit of Flynn so that we don't lose the best thing about the course---HE DESIGNED IT!.

   There will always be differences of interpretation of what Flynn would do today. But all of those people start from the same point. They research the archives of photos, the original design, what he wrote , how he changed the course, and more.

   How else would you try to figure out what he would do today?

  I just think you need to bring more to the table.

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

I like your passion but suspect your analytical process.  You have to guard against annointing yourself as someone who knows what Flynn would do and seek to implement your decisions based upon such a spurious conclusion.

Firstly, although you have researched the Staebler materials specific to Rolling Green to some degree, you have been to how many Flynn courses?  Seen how many drawings?  Studied how many photographs?  Read how much of his writings?  

Secondly, you've made what I consider inconsistant judgements and departings from Flynn.  This loose approach is not one I regard very highly.  

What you conceived on the right side of the first green introduces a variety of shot not found on the golf course.  Yes, it can be an interesting shot but it is exactly the opposite of Flynn's drawings; whether it was executed or not remains to be determined.  But don't use the drawings or photos to defend some things you like and depart from them elsewhere if you want to be consistant.  Flynn did use chipping areas on other courses; it is not like closely mown hollows were foreign to him.  But what he drew, namely a rough hollow so that the green was surrounded on three sides by rough and the left side by sand, you dismissed.  Yet on other matters you are willing to stand steadfast by his drawings or changes made 70 years ago and proclaim them his final will and we need to draw the line in the sand.  You can't have it every which way and so I would leave it up to others to decide what is correct.  Discuss and learn with experts such as Jim Nagle, Ron Forse, Gil Hanse and others that have been there to study the golf course.  But don't go on a crusade based on uninformed ideas without listening carefully to others in order to gain perspective.  

By the way, I wouldn't call RGGC a vibrant membership and whatever its ethos or energy level is, it is certainly not influenced by a lack of forced carries.  I have no idea what you mean by this.

However, I certainly do appreciate how you've stood by me on some issues at RGGC both related to and unrelated to architecture.  Thanks.

[mike_malone]

 I wrote a long response but I was logged out and could not post it.

    I welcome all specific misinterpretations I have made. Your generalized response seems to lack them. #1 was not my idea; I like it though; and I know it is not Flynn.You could be helpful by finding out why they didn't build it as designed, which I also know.

   Suffice it to say that I agree with everything you said after that; it is not the opposite of my views. Someone who shall go nameless was on the green committee when it was asked " Can't we get someone in here who is an expert on Flynn ". This someone mentioned Ron Forse.


    I think I sent you the email I sent to the green cmte. In it I said I was just compiling expert info we already have. I am not qualified to do more.

 BTW you are welcome for the support.


    I have played 6/7 Flynn courses; intend to add 2 more this year. I have studied our master plan extensively . I bet more than you have. And have looked at the aerial photos of RG endlessly; again probably more than you.

  All this does is make  me a well informed amateur.


     As a result of this study, I find that everything I think is wrong was done by someone after Flynn and when I find out what it was like when he was around I prefer it.


   I wanted to add that I think you would be hardpressed to find anyone who agreed more with your architectural study don e than me.

       

[Andy Scanlon]

If I may interject --

Mike:  Why was #1 not built as designed?  I much prefer the original design to what we currently have in place, but doubt it will ever be changed.

[wsmorrison]

Rather than hash it out on the website, let's sit down and talk about it face to face over some iced teas.

Since you know why #1 green was built as it was, why don't you just save me the trouble and tell me?  I don't know how you can know why they did something when it isn't confirmed how it was originally maintained and there is no writing that I am aware of that indicates intentions.  I think the green was kept surrounded by rough for a time.  I know Hanse wanted it.  Why wasn't it maintained that way and why wasn't it implemented in the recent work?

What expert info have you compiled?  Outside of the Staebler collection, Hanse and Forse Design plans and the Flynn drawings what else is there?  I have contemporary newspaper accounts but they are not informative.

Your enthusiasm is commendable, but allow me the liberty to say that seeing 6 or 7 courses and studying the master plan (one expert's view) and RGGC aerial photographs does not make someone well-informed.  Better informed than everyone else on the green committee for certain, but not necessarily well-informed.  You are welcome to come over and study everything I have and become well-informed.  Not only is the study of Flynn necessary but also other classic era architects.  Ron Forse told me that a long time ago and after a while it actually sunk in    The art of analysing materials such as this requires perspective, something that I think you lack.  Many of your ideas are sound, but some are not and others lack consistant logic.  We'll go over this in a friendly manner sometime soon, I hope.

No doubt the interventions by green committees were not as well conceived as Flynn.  He was the expert and the others practicing out of their element.  All I'm saying is that we have to be careful we are not guilty of the same thing no matter how noble the intentions.  When I came up with the idea for the bunker on 7 as part of a process to remove the trees I mentioned it to about 5 architects and everybody who I had over to the course.  In this way I learned what they thought and had to defend the idea to a wide range of opinions.  This testing of the idea was long and involved and helped sell the idea in the long run.

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,

    At least when I argue with my wife  I disagree with her

[wsmorrison]

If 1 green was built surrounded by rough, maintenance practices changed and the feature lossed and then Hanse intended to return  it in the master plan, why wasn't it done?  Andy and I would like to know.

[John Gosselin]

Could you guys video tape RG greens committe meetings and share them with us?

[mike_malone]

 I may be wrong ,which would not be a first, but the 1926 aerial look on #1 does not appear to show rough. I must confess that Dave Staebler said this to me. Maybe I need to be wary of him, but it looks that way to me. I realize these are hard to read , and I thought you agreed with this. Now you seem to be singing a different tune.

   But, this is a needless argument as far as I am concerned. I agree that we should do it that way. That's the main point.

[John Gosselin]

Wayne, some day if you would like to know all that went on during the master plan process when Gill was involved I would love to talk to you. I can shed some light on why some things were done and some things were not done. Also, why things were done the way they were done. We could walk RG...I would love to hear your thoughts on several things.

There are a lot of well intended, passionate members at RG. I have always wanted to go back there....as a member!

[mike_malone]

 John,

   I would love to tag along ; there is much I need to learn to achieve "well-informed" status. I was awaiting my bond during that process.

[wsmorrison]

John,

Let's do it anytime convenient for you.  Is this time of year better?  It would be an absolute joy to walk the course with you.  I have lots of drawings to show you of RGGC and other courses I know you're interested in.  

Did you know that Pearse is moving to N. Carolina?  He and his brother-in-law are buying a golf course.  I forget which one.

[Dunlop_White]

Nice work! The pictures look great. They would be much more revealing, however, if both the "befores" and the "afters" were taken at the same time of year or during thr same season. Then all your efforts would immediately pop out on the print or screen, and you could thereby sell tree work to just about anyone -- including your members -- even the initial detracters.

[wsmorrison]

You're right about that, Dunlop; Tom Paul said the same thing.  I'll take some pictures in the spring to match the before photos taken by Ron Forse and that appear in the My Home Course write-up.  By then I imagine a number of more evergreens will be no more.  I know Charlie has one in mind for the staff Christmas party next year.

[mike_malone]

I had an awesome experience on my post lunch stroll today. As I walked down towards #9 tee I could see that one evergreen was soon to fall. I walked around and up to the back tee to see the view. Then TIMBER ; it came down. For just a second I felt bad for the tree ; it was just a second though.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()