Stretching the Envelope

[Mike_Cirba]

With so many modern courses so strictly adhering to convention as to become predictable and yawn-inducing at times, it was refreshing and even shocking at times to walk the French Creek Golf Club in Elverson, PA last week.

Tom Paul mentioned it along with its neighbor, Stonewall II, in a previous recent thread on "Natural Bunkers", and I'd concur heartily with what he and others mentioned there about the bunkering of both courses (I saw only about 1/3 of Stonewall however).  However, the bunkers at both are quite different from each other, but artistic and stunningly captivating, nonetheless.  As mentioned, French Creek's bunkers look to have been ripped from the earth, and have the type of irregular edges that look like the walls of a creek bed after a torrential rainstorm has pulled away the smooth walls.  Stonewall's are the type of "shadowy" bunker that start at ground-level and go DOWN, although shaped in somewhat of a Mackenzian fashion.  VERY unique looking and I believe they'll have "collecting" qualities, as well, playing larger than their actual size.    

However, this thread isn't about bunkers, per se, although the French Creek course is chock full of strategic ones.

Instead, I'd like to jot down a few impressions because there are any number of holes there that to me are "stretching the envelope" of what we normally think of as sound, traditional architecture in modern times, and I'm going to be very curious to see how well it's received by modern golfers.

My first thought is that it's going to be a course that drives the "scorecard mentality" player nuts!  There are so many holes that are in the "half-par" range, and also holes where disaster looms so anyone trying to shoot a low medal round will have to really think their way around.  What's more, they will have to truly forget about what par is on the card and play for the lowest score within their game.

I've argued in the past that par is completely meaningless, but I'm starting to think it can be a good tool that an architect can use to prey upon the ego of the golfer.  None of the yardages or pars I'm going to list following are finalized yet, but consider the following holes to illustrate my point.

#2 - 464-500 yards - par four - A beautifully natural hole swinging downhill to the right around some gorgeous corner bunkering.  Just short of the green is a 15-20 foot deep hollow that runs for about the last 30-40 yards.  The green sits just on the high end of the other side and runs from front to back into death beyond.  The left side of the hollow will accommodate a running shot, but there is a wonderfully placed bunker if one bails too far.  MANY a ball will end up in the hollow, and it will be the scene of much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

#4 - 541 yards - par five - One of the most "manufactured" holes on the course due to the architect needed to create a somewhat level fairway on a steeply banking left to right part of the property.  The teeshot needs to carry wetlands for about 160 yards, and bunkers protect the drive.  However, what really makes this hole is the fact that the green is literally sandwiched between the steep hillside from the left, and a creek that runs to the edge of the green on the right, with everything flowing towards the hazard.  There is also a layup area that has been created in the 100-150 yard range that is just full of bumps and hollows, and where visibility can be compromised by placement.  There will be eagles on this hole, and there will be tens.

#5 - 122yds, par three - A short, uphill pitch over broken ground and a steep cliff-face wall, reminding me a little of #4 of Lulu CC.  There is a bailout area left (right runs along the property line) but it's filled with little "dolomites", and the green runs away sharply left to right.  

#6 - 586-610 yds, par five - UPHILL and seemingly forever, there are multiple cross bunkers that one needs to negotiate on each shot.  The second shot in particular needs to either challenge the centering cross bunkers, in an effort to reach higher ground, or one is left with a partially blind, LONG approach.  Similar in strategy to the 14th at TOC.

#7 - 376 yds, par four - Another perfectly natural hole, and apparently the first one that Gil Hanse & co. found out there.  The tee shot plays slightly downhill only to find a huge ugly cross-bunker dead center of the fairway at about 260-270 yards from the tee.  What's particularly interesting is that the view of the green is blocked by a couple of boulders and a natural knob just short right of the green, and the green runs from front to back, right to left.  Anyone coming in "hot" from the right side is going to have their hands full.  There is room out to the left, and a better angle, but I think this hole is going to be infuriating and perplexing to anyone who tries to play it aggressively.

#9 - 409 yards - par four - An uphill tee shot to a plateued fairway split by center bunkers into a "highroad/lowroad" scenario.  The higher leftside affords a view of the uphill punchbowl green set in a high hollow, while the lower rightside leaves an "Alpslike" approach that is COMPLETELY blind.  

#11 - 537 yards - par five - After a healthy drive over a wetland crossing on a fairly flat stretch with a WIDE fairway, (incidentally, almost every hole has significant width from the tee), the bomber is hoping to get home in two.  However, THERE IS A (previously existing) 3 FOOT HIGH STONE WALL THAT BISECTS THE HOLE 15 yards short of the green!!  I can only imagine the screaming about this one, especially when players unthinkingly become "stymied" behind it and have to play backwards!  

#12 - 478 yards - par four - A hole that looks as though not a teaspoon of earth was moved (although the bisecting creek was man made) as one seemingly drives into a big, flattish, open meadow with plenty of room out to the right and the creek snaking into the left side of the driving area.  The green is just to the other side of the creek, so that a drive challenging the creek leaves a good angle for a long running approach, (with no bunkers), and a shot from the right must carry the creek directly.

#13 - 468 yards - par four - From tee to green, I believe this hole plays about 70-80 feet uphill.  (Eric Pevoto shared some pics of this one from the tee on the other thread).  It swings right around some amazingly penal bunkering, and then heads more sharply uphill past "a place where golfers go to die" bunker on the left, and land falling off to the right.  I'm not quite sure how one "lays up" effectively on this hole, because the hilltop green is blind if one doesn't get pretty far up there with the second shot.

#14 - 384 yards - par four - One of the most unorthodox and potentially maddening and score-wrecking holes I've ever seen.  This hole is at that high-end of that side of the property, and skirts a steep fall off on the left, "riding the ridge" so to speak, before turning left for the approach.  The fairway is somewhat hogbacked, but built up slightly on the leftside.  There is a stretch of broken ground and boulders about 290 yards from the tee, which juts diagonally into the fairway from the left.  The second shot is a steep drop shot to a small green that falls away to all sides into wooded, rough areas.  The idea from the tee is to challenge the steep fall off to the left as closely as possible, simply because anything to the center or right of there leaves a completely blind second shot that is simply FRIGHTENING.  Seeing the green on the second is scary enough.  If there's a par four version of the "2 or 20" hole at Engineers, this might prove to be it.  

#15 - 300 yards, par four - After the dizzying vertigo one might experience on the 14th, the 15th might drive one mad if not played with lots of thought.  Diagonal bunkers come in from right to left, crossing the width of the fairway and once again creating a "highroad/lowroad" option.  The green sits high on a natural plateau, but if one lays up to the lower ground left, the second will be vexing and exacting.  A place for a birdie...or a 7.

#17 - 237 yards, par three - This uphill par three, discussed elsewhere as "The ABRUPTMENT" hole, is somehow par for the course and the appropriate denoument to a series of unusually unorthodox and perplexingly creative golf holes.  Everything from the back tee aimed 45 degrees right of the green, to a blinding cross bunker 100 yards from the tee, to the steep false front on the right side of the green that would be at home on #17 Merion tends to create confusion and indecision here.  

It will be very interesting to see how a course as fresh and potentially controversial as French Creek is received.  Much of "neoclassic architecture" that has been built in recent years borrows much from the ideas and thinking of more traditional Golden Age architects.  French Creek takes those influences, and attempts to expand on them in ways that are bold and daring.  In a way, it probably owes more to some of the wild quirkiness found at places like Apawamis and Engineers than to something by Donald Ross or Tillinghast.  

My sense is that most of it will work quite well, some of it will be VERY controversial and there may be demands for refinement over time, but that almost all of it will be FUN, particularly for the golfer with a match-play mindset who is willing to accept that adventure, humor, whimsy, guile, and perplexing idiosyncracies should be a valuable, welcomed part of the modern game.    

 

[Mike_Cirba]

I should mention that pictures of the holes at French Creek (during grow in) are available at the following site.  

They should help to illustrate some of my descriptions of the holes.  

www.frenchcreekgolf.com

[Jim_Kennedy]

OK Mike, we're waiting.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I think you might find when you return to Stonewall2 at some point that the course's bunkering really won't seem shadowy when they get the sand in. It looks that way now but you should see a vast difference later.

The overall scale of it is different than French Creek, I think, and the little divisions of sand and grass will probably be more apparent. I don't think Stonewall2 is planning the surrounds to be so grassy as French Creek. I believe Stonewall2 will be seeding in their surrounds while FC was that interesting chunking method on a lot of it.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I realize that most of the bunkers at Stonewall II aren't fully "sanded" yet, but I still think some of the shadowy quality will hold true when they are.

I say that because of the way they seem to function as almost "trap doors", starting at existing ground level and going down.  Even if sand is flashed right up to the very top lip, I think that particularly in the morning or late day light, they are going to have a rather dramatic, shadowy look to them simply based on their subsurface location in contrast with their surrounds.  

Perhaps I'm wrong because I only got a look at about six of the holes, or perhaps I'm not quite sure how they will evolve through the construction process or fully understand Tom & Kye's intentions.  

Tim Weiman, what's your opinion?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim Kennedy;

Oops...thanks

www.frenchcreekgolf.com

[GeoffreyChilds]

Mike

That's one hell of good review of your walk through the French Creek course. Your insights in writing are about as good as a photo and my already high interest in getting out there is even higher now.  

I particularly liked your evaluation of the bold features, half pars and wild ranges of scores you predict for so many holes.  Gil's courses are generally pretty difficult but only when you get greedy and try for more then you normally are capable of carrying off.

As you know, Gil did restoration work at Apawamis last year and Engineers in the past.  He's also built a delightful links in Scotland (Craighead) that I've also had the pleasure of playing and it too has many of the bold features you described.  I wonder if that is going to be what Gil is remembered for in his work?  If Doak has been called the modern MacKenzie can we beging to think of Gil as a combination of Emmet/Strong/Travis and Tillinghast?  Rustic Canyon is a bit different from the others and perhaps Gil is only now getting properties that he can fully expand on his "style" but I'd love to hear from him about this issue of "design style".

[TEPaul]

Unless they're going to have some super eyebrows on them the ones I was looking at seem pretty obvious as to where the sand will come up to but maybe I'm wrong. You can see where lips are formed pretty clearly.

If I'm not mistaken, the young man, Kyle Franz, had a lot to do with the formation of the lips and such in a very nice random way--obviously some real hand attention! I thought I heard that's what his job was. I think they're going to be seeded in--at least I thought I heard that and the surrounds I thought I heard were planned to be kept quite short.

Certainly Tom Doak can answer all that.

If you want to see shadowy bunkering come see the work Gil's doing on GMGC. I really like it, I think it makes a golfer really pay attention and concentrate as to were to go and not to go since the sand is far less obvious than with the old super edged up bunkering we used to have.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I'll certainly make a point in getting out there whenever it's convenient for you.  Glad to hear it's coming along so well!  

I like your point about the fact that it makes the golfer "really concentrate as to where to go and not to go".  I think creating that visual indecision is something that Gil tends to do really well.

There was a thread recently about visual "lines of play", and from what I saw of French Creek, figuring out the proper line on many holes is going to be something that will be perplexing to many, and depending on wind conditions, may change from day to day.  Some of the fairways are so wide, and the scale so EXPANSIVE, and the crossing and diagonal bunkers so pervasive, that figuring out advantageous lines of play will be a real mind-tease.  

Geoffrey;

Glad you enjoyed my descriptions.  The pics are worth checking out anyway, if only to further whet the appetite.    

[Tim Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

Honestly, when I walked Stonewall 2, the bunkers did not stand out and grab my attention like the flow of the land, the three different settings, the greens and the depth perception issue.

I'm not knocking the bunkers; other things just made much more of an impression. Candidly, I'm not able to process everything on a single visit. The same weekend I saw Atlantic City Country Club and just the opposite happened: I loved the bunker work, so much so that despite going around the course a few times, I can't say much about the greens.

A couple years ago Mike DeVries was kind enough to give us a tour of Kingsley where the bunker work really stood out, so much so that I think Mike even got a little frustrated. Several times Mike asked what I thought of the greens and I just had to say: "Mike, I'll have to come back before I can answer that question".

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim;

Perhaps the bunkers were so "shadowy" as to be almost imperceptible to the human eye?  

Thanks for your honest answer.  I've heard similarly good things about the bunkering at ACCC.  

[Tom Doak]

Mike:  All I can tell you is we never used the word "shadowy" once during the construction of bunkers at Stonewall II.  They may be, to your eye, but it wasn't a conscious effort on anyone's part.

Yes, Tom P, Kyle Franz ran the crew which did all the hand work on them, after Kye Goalby had done the trackhoe work.  (Maybe 20% of the bunkers were built by other associates.  I even did the shaping on the fairway bunkers on #8.)  We haven't heard from Kyle since he stopped in at Sand Hills on his way back to Oregon ... his brain might have exploded there for all I know!

Sorry I can't add to the discussion about French Creek but I only went over there my first day on site at Stonewall II, so we'd be sure to do bunkers in a different style than whatever Gil was doing.  Basically, I've only seen holes 12-13-14 and what you can see of 17 from the road.  I wish I had more time to play others' courses but I'm having too much fun building my own right now!

[Tom Doak]

I got a giggle about Tim's mentioning the bunkers at Atlantic City.  Basically we "dumbed them down" to a style we thought the contractor could handle ... kind of an imitation of Tom Fazio's style.

There's no way you can build the kind of bunkers we did at Stonewall II with a contractor.  There's too much detail, and they are all in too big of a hurry.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Doak:

Giggle all you want and keep dumbing them down, but you won't convince me that complex of bunkers around 12 & 13 at Atlantic City aren't pretty special - at least by American (read non Melbourne) standards.

I really regret not having a camera to document the view from 12 green or 13 tee. Larry Lambrecht was kind enough to send me a picture, but the conditions were quite different (far too green) than they were during our visit.

True, I don't get out much these days, but it's hard to imagine anything much better.

[Craig_Rokke]

Very perceptive summary of your findings, Mike. I too believe some things will be controversial, but I don't think that's necessarily bad. As you alluded to, the courses that don't tend to stir up discussion are usually pretty bland.

I haven't seen the course since mid summer, so I hope I'll
get another glimpse at some point. What I did remember
was unique and creative. My golf hat goes off to Jeff Broadbelt and ownership for allowing Gil some design freedom.

I was glad to hear that the stone wall has existed on the property for quite some time. They had some balls to keep it and position it where they did, but I think they made the right choice.

I'd agree that some of the approach shots have to potential to be very exacting, depending upon your line of approach.
The scorecard watcher, as you implied , will have some opportunities to lose his composure.

Though it's  picturesque & rolling, FC's site is not without its challenges. Wetlands, a road (rt 401) and some limited
housing influenced the routing ,which has evolved into a sort of butterfly shape, with groupings of holes roughly divided up into quadrants. I'll be curious to see how the ultimate "rhythm"
of the course feels.

Mike's last paragraph sums up my thoughts quite well. This is going to be a fun course to play.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Doak;

It's interesting what you mention about contractor's being in too much of a hurry to get the details right.

For a guy like you who has argued that the difference between a good course and a great course is often the last 10-20% spent on getting the details right, this is a statement that probably accounts for a lot of the "vanilla" work that is being done out there, both in new construction, as well as restoration.

Now, will you please REPEAT what you said for Patrick Mucci's benefit??!    Tom Paul and I have been trying to make that exact point to him for two years now...maybe he'll listen to you!  

In the case of Stonewall II, I did see the course in late afternoon low-winter-light, so that may account for the shadowing effect I noticed.  Still, you'll probably be pleased to know that the contrast is quite striking and the course is likely to look fantastic in the early morning and late day sun.

Could you describe for us what type of bunker style you were trying to do there?  Some of the shaping looks a bit Mackenzieish, but also with the "walling" of something more like Ross.  In any case, I found them to be quite distinctive, and they make a nice contrast from your original course there, as well as from Gil & crew's work across the street.  

As someone who loves to see different courses, and particularly fun, ballsy, and quirky ones, might I suggest that you might want to stop next door if you have a chance when you're in the neighborhood.  I think you'll enjoy the tour.  As for me, I look forward to seeing all of Stonewall II some time soon.    

[Mike_Cirba]

Craig;

You're quite correct in stating that the property that French Creek is on is hardly ideal in stretches.  Along with the limitations you mentioned, the property is pretty steep in stretches.

In fact, those limitations account for the only weak holes on the course; the long carry over wetlands par three on the 3rd hole that is necessary to get to the other side of the road, the way the 4th had to be layered to create a reasonably flat fairway, the drop shot par three 8th to transition back over, the drive on 11 over wetlands to get out to the "other side", and the strangely unique "ride the ridge" 14th to get back down the hill (which is sooooo different and wild that I think I LOVE it, although I suspect I'll be in the minority).  

What did you think of that one??

[Craig_Rokke]

Some aspects of 14 reminded me a little bit of the "farmer's road" hole @ Inniscrone. Overall, I like the hole, with it's boulder outcroppings, and the testy approach. Is my recollection  correct in that there may quite a few golfers getting into hot water off the tee? I think it's safe to say that there are two nerve wracking shots while in French Creek's brief wooded stretch.

With regard to the par 3 #3, do you remember how long the carry is over the wetlands? Any bail out area?

I'm sure the last part of hole #4 was a challenge, but I like 6/7!

[Mike_Cirba]

Craig;

Oh yes...the tee shot on #14 is fraught with trouble.  Perhaps Eric can post a pic of the tee shot as  there's a pretty good one on their website.  

Particularly with the focus on trying to get as close to the edge of what might as well be a cliff for a visible second shot, there are going to be a lot of balls falling off into perdition on the left.  There is also a diagonal series of three center bunkers coming into play on the tee shot, with the furthest carry the leftmost bunker, although the carry truly isn't all that daunting.

On #3, I estimate the wetlands carry from the tips to be about 190 yards.  Thankfully, they've been able to locate an island of "non-wetlands" in the midst of it to locate a forward tee where the hole will play about 120-130 yards, with about 100 yard carry.  

I love where they were able to locate the green on #4 (next to an existing creek), and 6 & 7 both look to be superb holes.

[Eric Pevoto]

This is taken from just forward of the middle tee.  What's the big deal?   The boulder poking up on the left side of the fairway is not very discernible in this pic, but is definitely a landmark from the tee.



Said boulder.  This is about 90 yards from the green.  There's more room around and forward of the green than appears.  We're adding a little more room to the left as well.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Eric;

That shot looks scary enough from 90 yards with a view of the green.  From 150 completely blind (unless one hugs the far left side of the fairway along the abyss) over the boulders and broken ground it gives one the feeling of hitting off the edge of the earth.  

Thanks for the pics!

[TEPaul]

Let's see someone tell us why that isn't some wonderful rugged natural looking bunkering!

[Dan Herrmann]

I admit this is a bit self-serving, but what the heck.

Just found this 12-year old thread through Google, and found that Mike Cirba's observations in the first post about French Creek were spot on. 

Goes to prove that somebody that cares about GCA can indeed make a number of very valid observations while a course is still under construction. 

[Garland Bayley]

The shocking thing is that this thread shows Tom Doak as Guest, and I find his name missing from the members list.

I guess that was the old "Tom Doak".
We now have the new (improved?) "Tom_Doak".

[Bill_McBride]

The shocking thing is that this thread shows Tom Doak as Guest, and I find his name missing from the members list.

It's there:  Tom_Doak, Member since 2009.   The list is alpha by first name.