News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


redanman

Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« on: May 30, 2007, 08:03:05 AM »
By Mark Wogenrich


Another take on one comment:
(I wonder, was that a left-handed compliment for Gordon?) "Great par 5's" at Weyhill, especially the 18th.  That's at least someone's definition of hell.

RW was in Phillipsburgh, NJ yesterday for the clubhouse dedication at Architect's Lite.  Look for comments by our own Jay Flemma.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2007, 08:17:39 AM »
"I'm always wary of an architect who says, 'Show me the old Ross plans, we'll rebuild it just like that.' Well, Ross himself late in his life was involved in rebuilding some of his earlier courses because he knew they were outdated. So you can't go back to a 1917 plan and say, Ross would have wanted it just like that. No he wouldn't have. He knew that, once steel shafts and balata balls came in, it was a different game.

So all you can do with restoration is try to sympathetically restore and yet make it work for today's equipment and today's game."

So, I guess Ron is not a Richardson Lemming, but he is a Naccarato Lemming?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2007, 08:41:52 AM »
Jeff:

I noticed that Ron was careful to qualify his comment that he's suspicious of architects who want Ross's "plans" but he did not directly say that he doesn't think a course can be restored using aerial photos, etc.  He has seen enough to know better than that.

The thing I don't understand in this debate is that last quote about "make it work for today's equipment and today's game".  What exactly doesn't work on many of these old courses?  Just because there are 20 members out of 300 who drive it past the fairway bunkers doesn't mean the design doesn't work ... in fact it probably works BETTER for the other 280 members.

John Kavanaugh

Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2007, 09:03:00 AM »


The thing I don't understand in this debate is that last quote about "make it work for today's equipment and today's game".  What exactly doesn't work on many of these old courses?  Just because there are 20 members out of 300 who drive it past the fairway bunkers doesn't mean the design doesn't work ... in fact it probably works BETTER for the other 280 members.

Tom,

Under your criteria should the A flight champion get the best parking spot at the club because his old worn out game fits the design intent of the course?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2007, 09:07:16 AM »
John:

If the course has good greens the other 20 guys are probably still intrigued, too; if not they can quit the club and go play the nearest Fazio or Nicklaus course that is 7400 yards and the bunkers are 290 off the tee.  But for most people that is unnecessary and to imply a course "doesn't work" without those tees is just rubbish.

John Kavanaugh

Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2007, 09:16:35 AM »
Tom,

If there are 20 out of 300 members who can carry the bunkers, how many members do you suppose are so horrible that nothing about the length of strategic placement matters...My guess would be 250.  Does the typical club really even have 50 out of 300 members whose game can be influenced by the placement of a fairway bunker?  I'm thinking the course would be more enjoyable for the general membership if only the best players have to worry about hitting driver into a fairway bunker...Let the lesser players swing away and the better ones lay up or challenge the trouble.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2007, 09:17:22 AM »
Tom,


What is it that an architect can do to "make a course work" for the bottom* 10% of the membership that also keeps it relevant to the middle class of say 10 - 15 handicappers?

*Bottom means worst golfers

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2007, 09:17:56 AM »
Tom,

Possibly as good a save as any goalie in the SC playoffs, but then again, perhaps not.

When I hear the words "sympathetically restore" I hear "don't change the basic style (i.e., add a bunch of mounds, etc.) but don't be hamstrung by a plan, or even an exact bunker placement.  

He specifically says he finds restoring "intent" to be the most important criteria.  I don't know if Ross bunkers challenged only the best, the average, or a mix of both on any particular course, but that would still open up a bunch of interpretive questions.

And, I think that was Forrest's "Lemming" point in a nutshell - no matter what you do, there is interpretation.  There are a lot of ways to consider restoration and make it a valid solution - but you favor one thing or another and probably won't please everyone.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2007, 09:19:10 AM »
I think JK made my point, only better than I did.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #9 on: May 30, 2007, 09:29:50 AM »
JES and JK,

In essence, placing fw bunkers for the good player only was the single item that made Augusta the preeminent course in the course and influence in the country, replacing Oakmont when it opened, no?

Whereas Oakmont penalized every bad shot with a bunker, Jones and Mac figured out that if someone was hitting it about 140 yards and couldn't hit the green anyway, why punish him?  He will make bogey and why does he need to make a double or more?  

For that matter, they tried to encourage certain lines of play as much or more than punish others for the better players.  Even the Ross "top shot" or other carry bunkers at about 120 yards went out of style, and that set the pattern for design for the next 70 years or so, basically continuing to today, with some exceptions.

I have heard older players say they pay their dues/greens fees, too and they deserve to hit into bunkers as well.  But, they can hit into greenside bunkers on nearly every hole, and we usually leave them a few bunkers that serve as optional carry bunkers for better players and lateral bunkers for shorter ones.  

Its not really all or nothing, its a matter of degrees - I would only want a few shorter distance fw bunkers on my courses, just as some gca's favor more greenside bunkers left than right (perhaps at a 2 to 1 ratio) on the theory that those come into play more often for good players and less often for poor slicers, so they are "perfectly located" in all respects.

BTW, as JK notes, rough is usually present every where down a fw, whereas a fw bunker takes up just 2000 sf typically.  The chances of hitting rough on a wayward shot is 100% for all players under the typical set up.  The chances of hitting the fw bunker, even if placed very logically to play, are still remote.  

Everyone hits a slightly different distance, AND we all hit it different distances on every individual hole, so we place fw bunkers at slightly varying distances, rather than always at 290, etc.  (Of course, this is influenced by landforms, wind, elevation, etc.)  While probable chance would even out the number of times any one player would hit a bunker, it is possible that even a good player hits it longer where the gca put a shorter bunker, and shorter when the gca places a longer bunker, etc.  Or, the other way around on a bad day!
« Last Edit: May 30, 2007, 09:35:20 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Brent Hutto

Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #10 on: May 30, 2007, 09:30:22 AM »
Is it too obvious to suggest that the fairway bunkering of different holes might challenge different players?

I hit it so short right now that I have to move up to the senior tees to bring even a single fairway bunker into play on my tee shot. But the course is overall more fun from the regular men's tees. I've always wondered why there shouldn't be a couple of holes with fairway bunkers so short you could bounce into them with even a 180-190 yard drive. But no course I've ever played regularly (100 or more rounds) has been set up that way.

Likewise I think it's good to have at least a couple holes with bunkers that can't be bombed over (from the back tees) by the occasional 300-yard driver. But it sure seems to be that courses are set up with an "ideal" distance off the tee for fairway bunkers and a limited (plus or minus maybe 25 yards) variance around that "ideal".

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #11 on: May 30, 2007, 09:42:43 AM »
The thing I don't understand in this debate is that last quote about "make it work for today's equipment and today's game".  What exactly doesn't work on many of these old courses?  Just because there are 20 members out of 300 who drive it past the fairway bunkers doesn't mean the design doesn't work ... in fact it probably works BETTER for the other 280 members.

Hear, hear!
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #12 on: May 30, 2007, 09:44:05 AM »
John:

If the course has good greens the other 20 guys are probably still intrigued, too; if not they can quit the club and go play the nearest Fazio or Nicklaus course that is 7400 yards and the bunkers are 290 off the tee.  But for most people that is unnecessary and to imply a course "doesn't work" without those tees is just rubbish.

Hear, hear again.

It was so refreshing to play Southern Pines from the "tips."

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Lloyd_Cole

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #13 on: May 30, 2007, 10:27:43 AM »
An aside.

Don't you hate reading those online articles that spread themselves over several 'pages' for no good reason other than banner exposure?

I just hit the 'Print' 'button'  above the Whitten interview and Lo! the whole article with a single banner above. Don't know if this will work on all sites, but I'll be experimenting this week.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #14 on: May 30, 2007, 10:45:17 AM »
Industry stats tell us that the preferred approximate play lengths among today's golfers are:
„X   Over 7000 yards ¡V 3%
„X   6700 Yards ¡V 16%
„X   6300 Yards ¡V 57%
„X   5600 Yards ¡V 19%
„X   5000 Yards ¡V 4%

If a course is "only" 6700 Yards, you only reduce the popularity of the cours by 3% of golfers (and even some of those would probably enjoy the right course at that yardage)  And yet, we all focus so heavily on the .00002% of tee shots that go over 300 yards in this country.

While I am not adverse to squeezing out a bit of yardage for those 3% or so, if safe and doable without ruining course character, generally, I agree that an older, shorter course should just be "comfortable in its own shoes."
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Lloyd_Cole

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2007, 10:57:40 AM »
I just joined Wyckoff Country Club in Holyoke, MA, an old 'Ross' that used to be Mount Tom GC (commissioned by Mr. Wyckoff. How much Ross is left?? not much according to Brad K, I see what I can find out..).
It's 6000 yrds from ther tips! (including an uphill 240 yd par 3) I need every shot in the bag and I must move the ball if I'm going to challenge par.

Jay Flemma

Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2007, 11:48:56 AM »
Well now that you mention it Bill, I had a great time at Architects.

Surprise!  My favorite holes were the Devereaux Emmitt, the Walter Travis!

Guys, they are right...the place is a living museum.  I like best how they seamlessly wove all 18 together into one flowing fell for the course, even though there were 18 different styles.  I loved the diagonals on the Mackenzie hole...and the green, but my fave green is still Emmitt's (number 4)

I am so angry I lipped out my putt for a sandie/par on the C.B. Macdonald hole after coming out of that 8 foot bunker to ten feet...oh well...try try again.

We should schedule a little weekend jaunt of lederach and archie's, dontchya think?

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2007, 11:55:37 AM »
I liked this part

Quote
The hot new thing now is to go to North Dakota and play the big three there, which are Stephen Kay's course, The Links of North Dakota, Jim Engh's Hawktree and Mike Hurdzan's Bully Pulpit.

I guess that makes Jay Flemma and I trendsetters. :)
Mollydookers rule! :)
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2007, 11:59:46 AM »
Don't you hate reading those online articles that spread themselves over several 'pages' for no good reason other than banner exposure?

That's a damned good reason, if you own the site!

What do you think is paying for the article? (Sorry. Just a rhetorical question from my beleaguered sector of the economy.)

And by the way: Yes, I hate reading those online articles that spread themselves over several "pages" for no good reason other than banner exposure. I very often go directly to Print This Article.

P.S. Just read the interview -- "page" by "page." I figure the Morning Call can use all the help it can get.

Pretty good interview, too -- lacking only in its failure to ask about Joe Burbeck.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2007, 12:15:24 PM by Dan Kelly »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2007, 12:24:50 PM »
I think we know by now that Ron is through answering Burbeck questions.
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Mike_Cirba

Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2007, 05:08:26 PM »
I cringe when I hear people say that hazards should be placed to only affect the best players.

This assumes that everyone else will just bump it along unimpeded (as well as uninspired, unchallenged, unconscious, unwitting, and unbelievably dull) 180-200 yards at a pop until they can reach each par four in 3 with a 40 yard chip or pitch for their third shot.

Why don't we just give them bumper lanes in the gutters as well??  ::) :P

When are we going to realize that the reason these old courses are so much friggin fun and so great is simply that they FORCE EVERY PLAYER TO THINK ON EVERY SHOT.

That's why guys come off these courses thrilled to death...even though they shot 110.   When the dust settles, they'll tell you about the 3 wood they smoked over the corner of the bunker, or the snaking double-breaker they holed to save a double bogey on the 16th.  

John Kavanaugh...we rarely agree but this is your worst idea yet.

Perhaps someone should go to the Old Course and remove every bunker less than 280 from the tee.

Golf is supposed to be an exciting adventure...not something requiring seatbelts and airbags.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2007, 05:18:06 PM »
...
John Kavanaugh...we rarely agree but this is your worst idea yet.
...

Amen!
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Jay Flemma

Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2007, 05:36:01 PM »
I liked this part

Quote
The hot new thing now is to go to North Dakota and play the big three there, which are Stephen Kay's course, The Links of North Dakota, Jim Engh's Hawktree and Mike Hurdzan's Bully Pulpit.

I guess that makes Jay Flemma and I trendsetters. :)
Mollydookers rule! :)


I had a great trip out there and heartily recommend it.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2007, 05:53:55 PM »
Mr. Cirba:

I nominate that for post of the year ... especially since I thought about it but was too tired to bother.

John Kavanaugh

Re:Interesting Short Ron Whitten Interview
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2007, 06:56:42 PM »
I cringe when I hear people say that hazards should be placed to only affect the best players.

This assumes that everyone else will just bump it along unimpeded (as well as uninspired, unchallenged, unconscious, unwitting, and unbelievably dull) 180-200 yards at a pop until they can reach each par four in 3 with a 40 yard chip or pitch for their third shot.

Why don't we just give them bumper lanes in the gutters as well??  ::) :P

When are we going to realize that the reason these old courses are so much friggin fun and so great is simply that they FORCE EVERY PLAYER TO THINK ON EVERY SHOT.

That's why guys come off these courses thrilled to death...even though they shot 110.   When the dust settles, they'll tell you about the 3 wood they smoked over the corner of the bunker, or the snaking double-breaker they holed to save a double bogey on the 16th.  

John Kavanaugh...we rarely agree but this is your worst idea yet.

Perhaps someone should go to the Old Course and remove every bunker less than 280 from the tee.

Golf is supposed to be an exciting adventure...not something requiring seatbelts and airbags.

Mike,

What a theoritical load.  Tell me where you want your hazards placed so they make your golfer think.  How far out would you suggest is the best distance for a cross bunker?  btw....I can't see the game growing or being enjoyable for the general membership if you have some hack out there considering options on 110 strokes...
« Last Edit: May 30, 2007, 06:58:43 PM by John Kavanaugh »