Weaknesses of the great designers?

[wsmorrison]

"Wasn't Flynn also designing Denver CC on that same Colorado trip?  He might have stopped in Chicago as well on the way out or back.  You can do the math as far as his own time on site.  I do believe the crews that were there had a lot to do with the course's success. "

Yes, he did do some design work for Denver CC.  18 holes but all were not accepted.  The membership thought the course too difficult.  If it was built, there'd be a little less talk of Cherry Hills.  You speculate about Flynn stopping in Chicago, probably because of Flynn's redesign of Glen View Club.  Flynn was at Glen View in 1922 but we don't know when.  Granted it is possible and maybe probable it was either on his way to or from Denver.  But that doesn't mean anything without more specifics.  How much time did Flynn spend in Chicago?  How much did that detract from his time at Denver?  Nobody knows but you assume it means Flynn spent a short time in Denver and you therefore conclude that the construction crew had a great deal to do with the course's success.  I am sure an experienced crew was a great asset, but isn't that true everywhere?  How do you know that one of Flynn's foremen weren't there?  There's so little information about Flynn that its hard to say one way or another.  That is true of the crew.  There's anecdotal evidence that it was Tillinghast's crew but no archival information.  Best not to speculate too much at this point let alone draw conclusions.

You mentioned Denver CC, Mark.  Here's one of a eighteen or so holes with plain bunkering and some longitudinal bunkers for Pat Mucci:



Keep naming courses and I'll demonstrate your opinion of plain is vastly different than my own.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
I see a lot of long grass and a huge grass cape.  Would you call that bunker artistic?  The angle is hard to see but does it blend in at all with the natural surrounds?  It would help if you could post a current picture of that bunker from the work down there that just went on?   It would be interesting to see.  

We could post photos back and forth for some time I'm sure.  The Flynn Cup was just played out at The Country Club in Cleveland.  What did you think of the restored bunkers there?  How about the bunkers at Glen View?  Why did Esler do what he did on that restoration and try to add some ragged edges into them?  What do you think of the bunkering (current and original) at Peper Pike?  Did you look at some old photos of that one?  How about the typical bunker at Lancaster or Philadelphia CC or Philmont or Lehigh or HV or Mannies just to name a few.  

[Paul_Turner]

Mark

Muirfield's 5th and 17th (9th was sort of there before his redo) are Colt's most famous, great par 5s.  There are others but nowhere near as many as great 3s.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
There is a difference between what is on paper and what is put on the ground.  Many Donald Ross drawings for example look dramatic on paper (some turn out that way for sure) but I would not call his bunker style dramatic would you?  The shapes, etc are more simple and ordinary.  I don't think Donald Ross was telling his shapers to pick out a cloud and build a bunker that looks like that.  But there were architects who said that    I don't think Flynn was one of them.  

Have you ever seen Denver CC or the terrain it occupies compared to Cherry Hills?  If not, you need to make a visit and then state your opinion about which would be the better golf course.  

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne:  So I guess Flynn's weakness was only knowing the alphabet as far as "Y"."

There's a lot of bunkers on that hole, Tom.

Mark,

We could post photos and drawings for some time...I've got a room full of thousands of them.  There are some courses that have clamshell and other simplified outlines.  But he was not overwhelmingly predisposed to that style.  I'm not sure you take into account the simplification over time due to maintenance practices.  I'm talking about Flynn bunkers within a few decades of original construction.

"The Flynn Cup was just played out at The Country Club in Cleveland.  What did you think of the restored bunkers there?  How about the bunkers at Glen View?  Why did Esler do what he did on that restoration and try to add some ragged edges into them?  What do you think of the bunkering (current and original) at Peper Pike?  Did you look at some old photos of that one?  How about the typical bunker at Lancaster or Philadelphia CC or Philmont or Lehigh or HV or Mannies just to name a few. "

Let me address this point by point.  The Flynn Invitational was played most recently at Indian Creek.  In 2004 the event was at TCC, Pepper Pike.  I think the restoration was quite good, bunkers included.  They aren't as plain as you think.  Certainly some holes had simplified bunker outlines, like 1, 12 and 13.  But most did not.  Here's a drawing of the fabulous 17th:



I've gone on record as respecting the bunkers at Glen View but wishing they were in character with the originals that were fairly simple.

Philadelphia Country Club bunkers have a great deal of aesthetics and more so when they were redesigned for the 1939 Open.  Every hole had a great deal of artistic bunkers.  They may not all be that way today...again maintenance practices.  So don't judge Flynn necessarily by the way they look today.

Here's the 1st at PCC (former 16th):



Here's a photo:



Here's the bunkering on the 3rd, formerly 18th and scene of Snead's demise in 1939:



Philmont (North or South) is not a Flynn course so I'd rather not discuss that.  Lehigh has a mixture of simple and intricate outlines and contours.  But you're right it is predominantly simple.  Flynn tended to do that on more topographic sites that didn't need the interest of highly stylized bunkers.  Huntingdon Valley and Manufacturers also has a variety of styles but predominantly simple.  I never said you were totally wrong

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Ok.  Maybe it is just a matter of our interpretation.  Let's agree to almost agree  

[wsmorrison]

I'm with you on that.  Flynn may not be the greatest architect of the classic era, but he was very good and not easily compartmentalized.  I know Flynn has few champions of his work with as much conviction as you, Mark.  I maybe come across too strong at times, but it is not out of too much sentiment but rather a sense that he isn't well known or understood and a desire to see him studied more.  So maybe I'm out there pushing a bit too hard.  I'll just be Cool McCool and let people decide for themselves  

[Andrew Thomson]

At the risk of upsetting a few, I'm prepared to say that as much as I have thoroughly enjoyed Mr Doaks work I'm yet to really enjoy a Par 5 that Tom has built, in fact none spring to mind as being amongst my favourite holes of the Doak courses I have played.

Having said that, perhaps I just need to see more of his work, which of course I intend to do!

[Tim Pitner]

Andrew,

I don't know whether you've played Pacific Dunes, but I'd recommend several par 5s on this course.  #3 would get my most enthusiastic thumbs up--challenging tee shot, great green site; I also think each of the par 5s on the back is a solid hole--#12 might be a little humdrum, but still good; #15 and #18 are both unique and enjoyable to play.  I wouldn't say the par 5s are the equal of the par 4s on Pacific (which I think has a world class collection of 4s, btw), but they're all good holes.

[Andrew Thomson]

Unfortunately for me my Doak experience is limited to 3 courses and soon to be 4 and as a result I stated in my above post that this opinion could easily be changed.  I'd be happy for Tom to take me to Pacific Dunes to show me his finest Par 5's or any other course of his choice  

I've played the Gunnamatta, Cape Kidnappers and Legends.  I'll be adding Barnbougle to this list sooner rather than later.

[Mark_Fine]

Off the top of my head, I can recall a few par fives that Doak has done that I was not enamored with.  #18 at the New Stonewall course in PA comes to mind as well as #18 at Riverfront in VA.  I believe both holes had wetlands issues to deal with but the way the routing turned out, their locations (particularly at Riverfront) feel in awkward locations.  At Riverfront the hole is marginally playable for all but the very best golfers.  If BillV thinks #11 is tough for a weaker golfer, he should see this one  

Maybe this thread does need separate posts as Tom Doak suggested.  Anyone here have the time to start some?

[Andrew Thomson]

so I'm not alone in my thoughts and the holes you mention are on courses I have not seen.

Obviously Pacific Dunes is going to have good Par 5's, a course of that renowned quality that has widely been praised is obviously not going to have oan ordinary set.

But outside Pacific Dunes can anyone point me at a truely great Par 5 on a Doak course?

[wsmorrison]

I think the back-to-back 7th and 8th par 5s at Beechtree are quite good par 5 holes.  Excellent tee shot on 7 with a go or no go second shot with a central bunker short of the green.  The rear of the green slopes away from play.  The 8th has an uphill blind tee shot and a second shot that has a hidden landing area due to bunkering.  That is a shot that forces second-guessing where you really have to trust your shot and hit it on the correct line.  The approach to the small and undulating green demands precision as well.

[Andrew Thomson]

thats enough for me, I'm going to have to check them out for myself

[Tom_Doak]

Andrew:  Again, it's priorities.  Royal Melbourne doesn't have any great par-5's either and it is still a "10".  

I usually give the best land to my par-4 holes and I've got a slew of those to show you.  But here are a few par-5's to sample:

Beechtree 7 & 8 (one reachable, one not very)
Stonewall Old 11 (a three-shotter without a cross hazard)
Black Forest 10
Pacific Dunes 3, 15 & 18
Riverfront 14
Cape Kidnappers 4 & 15 (the fourth is a personal favorite)
Tumble Creek 4
Sebonack 9, 15 & 18
Ballyneal 4, 8 & 16

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You mention some good holes several of which I have seen.  Every hole can't be perfect that is for sure.  However, do the two holes I mention bother you given that they are the finishing holes for the round?  

[Andrew Thomson]

Tom,

I have to disagree that RMGC doesn't have any great Par 5's.  Sure they may play short but anything with 5 as its par on the scorecard is still a Par 5 to me.  

I nominate 2 West as a fantastic hole and 10 East has one of my favourite greens.  4 West is also an excellent hole.  I also enjoy 17 East but along with 15 West  I wouldn't classify either as 'great'.

As far as 4 and 15 at Kidnapper's neither did much to arouse my golfing senses, 15 certainly aroused my fear of heights though, wonderful location and amazing view - the hole itself gets lost in the scenery.  Oh and I made 6 there so that doesn't help

[Tom_Doak]

Andrew:  I'll agree that the second and fourth at Royal Melbourne are great holes, although neither plays much like a par 4 and I believe the fourth is not listed as one for events.

Mark:  The 18th at Stonewall North is our least favorite hole on that course, because of wetlands issues that would be hard to explain, but some people actually like it.  As for Riverfront, alas, I have not seen the hole in seven years, but I thought it was fine -- certainly not the best hole on the course, as having a 90-yard forced carry in the middle of it is not ideal, but if you hit a poor tee shot you can lay up and still have a decent chance of reaching the green with your third, and it's a very cool approach and green.

So neither is one of my favorite holes, but I haven't figured out a way that either could be made significantly better given the site and what we had to work with.

[Andrew Thomson]

Tom,

From memory 4 West is the 14th on the composite course and is true to its Par.  I believe 2 West is true to its hole number and it's Par on the composite course also.  Admittedly both are mid iron approaches for me from the back tees, so in tournament play they are very short 5's.  But who cares about what the pro's do?  Especially at Royal Melbourne.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

As a weakness, as a whole, I'd say it's the lack of consitently interesting and challenging par 5's.

I think you can always find some good ones on some courses, but, in general, I think that the par 5's are the architect's "Achilles Heel" for all architects.

Mike Cirba,

I think you're off base on your theory.

Partially because you're viewing each hole in an isolated manner and disregarding the off fairway terrain.

You missed or forgot the deep gully that runs parallel to the second hole, the steep slope that runs parallel to the 5th hole.
The tremendous drop from # 6 tee to # 6 green.  The deep drop left of # 8, the huge hill left of # 16.  The tremendous drop from # 10 tee to the bottom of the fairway, the continued drop from # 10 green to # 11 green.  The use of Rae's creek on # 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16.

Take a close look at a topo and then tell me that the course doesn't have a great routing.

Better yet, why don't you make an attempt to route your design on that land, with the proviso that you can't copy any of the existing holes and the use of Rae's Creek.

Good Luck  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

I think you're off base on your theory.

Partially because you're viewing each hole in an isolated manner and disregarding the off fairway terrain.

You missed or forgot the deep gully that runs parallel to the second hole, the steep slope that runs parallel to the 5th hole.
The tremendous drop from # 6 tee to # 6 green.  The deep drop left of # 8, the huge hill left of # 16.  The tremendous drop from # 10 tee to the bottom of the fairway, the continued drop from # 10 green to # 11 green.  The use of Rae's creek on # 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16.

Take a close look at a topo and then tell me that the course doesn't have a great routing.

Better yet, why don't you make an attempt to route your design on that land, with the proviso that you can't copy any of the existing holes and the use of Rae's Creek.

Good Luck  

Patrick,

That's quite the challenge!  

I'll have a look but as I said in the beginning...in no way would I consider myself capable of coming up with a better one...just left with a sense that a better one could be found by someone skilled in the art.

If I do try something, I'd have to keep several of the existing holes.  After all, my original contention was that one could keep Amen Corner with alternate routings.  

After all, we wouldn't want to throw out the baby with the bath water!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I thought that the 3rd hole green complex was one of the best that I had seen on any par 5, and the hole, exceptional.
Fun to play, yet challenging.

I think # 18 suffers in that few play the hole from the upper tee, and as such, they have a limited perspective.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

A closer examination of the off fairway/rough areas might change your mind.

The use of Rae's Creek, including Amen Corner is an integral part of the entire routing.  That section of the golf course didn't happen by chance and is intricately woven into the fabric that comprises the quiltwork of holes we call a routing.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

A closer examination of the off fairway/rough areas might change your mind.

The use of Rae's Creek, including Amen Corner is an integral part of the entire routing.  That section of the golf course didn't happen by chance and is intricately woven into the fabric that comprises the quiltwork of holes we call a routing.

Patrick,

My assumption going in is that I could remove any trees I wanted and I'd be chainsaw happy.  

Also, unless an area is some beaten, rough ground currently in the woods I'd assume it could be fairway even if it's in the "Second Cut" today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Feel free to chainsaw away.

Please look closely at the topo, as Tom Doak stated, some of those slopes are so steep that they couldn't retain a golf ball.

After this exercise you might have a greater appreciation of the current routing.