[Matthew Rose]

Has anybody played the renovated Cherry Hills, or taken photos?

I can't seem to find any information anywhere. The club's website doesn't appear to have been updated in some time (or at least the photos haven't).

I am curious to see what was changed, and how things turned out. I live in Denver now and drive by it occasionally. Apart from always having a keen interest in the course (a family friend played in the '78 Open there), I was hoping to do a rendition for Links 2003.

[John Sabino]

Matthew - I played Cherry Hills recently and thought it was a great course. Some photos.


The uphill par four dog-leg right 9th hole


The newly rebuilt 13th green from behind. The green slopes back to front


My favorite hole, par four 14th, second shot plays down hill to the left to this green


The tricky par four 14th hole with a green set at an angle to the fairway.

[JNC Lyon]

Cherry Hills is a Flynn design that gets consistently high ratings.  However, it is rarely talked about on this site.  I'd be interested to know what Flynn's original bunker style was for Cherry Hills.  I'd also like to know who is responsible for the current bunker style.

[Tom_Doak]

My associates (led by Eric Iverson) are responsible for the current bunker style, seeing as how we rebuilt all of the bunkers last fall.  We tried to imitate what we saw from 1930's photos, although that was impossible on the holes along the main creek, which back in the day was a winding watercourse with wide sandy banks that blended into some of the bunkers.  The creek has been cleaned up for flood control purposes and it was impossible to reinstate that look.

[astavrides]

John,

Thanks for the pictures.  It's not clear to me if both of those pictures are really #14--just taken from different angles.  There used to be greenside bunker on the other side of the creek (left of the green as you approach it) that I actually managed to hit in it.  An unusual bunker shot to hit it back over the water onto the green.  I guess that bunker has been removed?

[Matthew Rose]

Have the bunkers been removed from #13 green? I recall there being four or five around it. It doesn't look like there are any there.

Also, I think the bottom picture looks like it might be #16.

[Tom_Doak]

The last photo is indeed #16 and not 14.

Matthew:  The new version of #13 has one greenside bunker guarding the left hole locations (but not visible in the picture).  Flynn's original green site had no bunkers, but it did have sand along the creek in front of the green, which we could not put back in that form.  The original green was also very steep from back to front -- too steep to replicate, which is why it was changed to the version you remember.

[Doug Wright]

The last photo is indeed #16 and not 14.

Matthew:  The new version of #13 has one greenside bunker guarding the left hole locations (but not visible in the picture).  Flynn's original green site had no bunkers, but it did have sand along the creek in front of the green, which we could not put back in that form.  The original green was also very steep from back to front -- too steep to replicate, which is why it was changed to the version you remember.

Tom,

Can you give us more specifics on what you did with the green on #13? Did you relocate it or just rework it?

The downhill second shot into #14 is one of the best second shots anywhere IMO.

I'll be playing Cherry Hills after Labor Day. The Cherry Hills members were able to play our course at Denver CC while their course was closed last year, so they're reciprocating with us this year. I look forward to the opportunity to play the "new and improved" Cherry Hills.

FYI what I've heard is that the course plays easier than before from the regular members tees but tougher than before from the back tees. Don't know for sure why, but maybe due to added length on the back tees and tree removal aiding the regular members?

[Matthew Rose]

Take some more photos

[John Sabino]

Sorry, the last picture is of the approach to the 16th green. A few more greens:


The par three 15th green


The par five 17th green

[PCCraig]

Perhaps I'm missing something but from the pictures I don't understand why this course is so highly regarded. I'm not saying its over or underrated...I've never seen the course.

How extensive was the restoration/renovation?

Can someone who is familiar with the club give me a general rundown as to what makes this a special course?

[Mike Bowline]

I plan on doing a hole-by-hole pictorial with before and after photos later this fall (late August). My inside link is that I worked for the contractor who worked with Renaissance and the club to complete the renovation in Fall, 2008.

[Adam Russell]

Perhaps I'm missing something but from the pictures I don't understand why this course is so highly regarded. I'm not saying its over or underrated...I've never seen the course.

You're not. The whole place was underwhelming pre-Doak, very disappointing for such a historic course. I remember walking 17 and thinking that it was the most boring uber-famous hole I had witnessed (same with #1). And the new pictures don't show much of the big-time improvements except the tree clearing on the island, which probably looks better straight on from the fairway. 

[Bill_McBride]

Perhaps I'm missing something but from the pictures I don't understand why this course is so highly regarded. I'm not saying its over or underrated...I've never seen the course.

You're not. The whole place was underwhelming pre-Doak, very disappointing for such a historic course. I remember walking 17 and thinking that it was the most boring uber-famous hole I had witnessed (same with #1). And the new pictures don't show much of the big-time improvements except the tree clearing on the island, which probably looks better straight on from the fairway. 

There's a good book about the 1960 Open won by Arnold Palmer with his final round 65.  (Arnold to sportswriter Bob Drum, "What do you think 65 would do for me?")  This was an incredible Open as Ben Hogan was in it until he found the fronting creek at 17 and Jack Nicklaus was in it until his putter went astray on the back nine Saturday afternoon in the final round.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D. — Maybe you can relate how the very thoughtful master plan by Mark Fine paved the way for the work. I would be interested to know you how your team fared to implement (or re-introduce) Flynn's work and also what the highest ranked of the improvement were; e.g., were the main improvements bunker "looks" or were the improvements adding/subtracting bunkers, etc.?

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:

As you know [and are apparently eager to promote], Mark did a great deal of historical background work for the club to try and show them what Flynn's original concepts were and how they had changed over time.  We weren't involved then; but without that work, I don't know if the club would have gone in the right direction where we were able to help them. 

There are two clashing priorities at Cherry Hills -- preserving the original design vs. keeping the course relevant for big tournaments -- and the latter is especially prominent at Cherry Hills because past big events are so key to the history of the course.  The proponents of the constant change to keep the course tournament-relevant could have made a mess of things there, if left to their own devices.

Your exit question seems to be about whose work was more important -- the "looks" of the bunkers (our construction work) or adding/subtracting bunkers (which you may be implying was done by others).  As it happens, I'm sitting reading this tonight at Sebonack, where another collaborator of mine tried to give me credit for the "look" of the course but not the strategy.  So I encourage you to tread carefully here.  Or maybe you should ask the client what was the most important part.

[Forrest Richardson]

I don't know if "eager to promote" is a good characterization...it just seems an essential part of the story. Mark completed much more than a historical background for the club, but what was or wasn't implemented from those plans is water under the bridge at this point.

Since I do not know what finally did get changed there, I was looking for your take on whether the results were more about "looks" or more about shifting hazards and/or replacing some of the original intent — my post was not intended to offend.

It sounds like the outcome was a good combination and I am looking forward to seeing it on my next Colorado trip. (BTW...I'm not sure my asking the club would get a definitive answer...besides, I was looking for your take!)

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:

The number of changes made to the course was considerable, and included:

a)  Building new greens on holes 3 and 13.  We tried to build these more in line with the original Flynn greens, keeping in mind that the original #13 was too steep to replicate, and the original #3 was a bit out of place.  (I wish I had the old picture of it to share with everybody.)  We also fixed the front right of #10 green to restore a hole location that had become too steep.

b)  Moving back the entire 8th hole (a long par 3) about 75 yards so we could extend back tees on two key holes, #9 and #16.  The ninth looks terrific with most of the trees on the right gone so you can see the green and clubhouse from the right of the fairway.

c)  Adding a few other back tees, while refusing to add a couple of silly ones that had been championed by various people.  After much cajoling, they also let us put in a lower-left tee on #14, which will be even better when they cut down more trees on that side someday.

d)  Changing the bunkering schemes considerably at holes 1, 5 (bringing back a central fairway bunker that had been removed), 7, 13, and 17.  They let us put back nearly all of the old cross bunkering on #17, and I'm curious to see how that plays out with the membership.  And,

e)  Rebuilding every bunker.

So it definitely wasn't all about the look.  The three holes which are most improved (in my estimation) are #9, #5, and #17.

[Will Smith]

I was there earlier this year. For a brief review and quick video tour see:

http://punchbowlgolf.com/2009/08/cherry-hills-country-club/

Tom and teams changes are starting to put some pop into this otherwise staid parkland layout. Now if they could only tackle the creeks.

[Forrest Richardson]

I do recall that the work at No. 8 allowed for lengthening, and this seemed universally accepted by the club. The other changes sound very positive, too. Again, I look forward to seeing it.

[Adam Clayman]

Only from the pictures, tree clearing looks to be an imperative.

Tom, I am wrong in assuming this place would've been a much better challenge pre-modern irrigation systems?

Knowing the prolific long ball hitting nature of the typical Colorado golfer, with modern equipment, I suspect any discovered old cross bunkering will not be an issue. Just a guess.

[Scott Szabo]

Perhaps I'm missing something but from the pictures I don't understand why this course is so highly regarded. I'm not saying its over or underrated...I've never seen the course.

You're not. The whole place was underwhelming pre-Doak, very disappointing for such a historic course. I remember walking 17 and thinking that it was the most boring uber-famous hole I had witnessed (same with #1). And the new pictures don't show much of the big-time improvements except the tree clearing on the island, which probably looks better straight on from the fairway. 

Adam,

I'd be curious to your thoughts on why it was so disappointing.  I've never been to Cherry Hills, by the way...

Scott

[Matthew Rose]

The work all looks fantastic, and I look forward to seeing the 2012 Amateur there.

[Adam Russell]

Adam,

I'd be curious to your thoughts on why it was so disappointing.  I've never been to Cherry Hills, by the way...

Scott

Scott S.
 I think what turned me off most was the lack of strategy for a higher-handicap player. There was a clear interest on challenging the better players within the club and tournaments, and it seemed like a boring course to play for someone who didn't hit the ball 250+. Other than #1, #17, and #18, it was hard to remember any of the rest of the course because it lacks interest in the fairways and on the greens (no micro-contours). Most fairways appeared as board-like uphill/downhill plains, and this made the bunkers feel placed and artificial. More specifically the type of trees planted near the fairway edges (conifers) gave the place a real claustrophobic feeling. It is also a pretty tough walk. Growing up, you hear so much about it (Arnold Palmer, Ben Hogan, etc.) that I came in thinking the tournament history was due to a good architectural mix, and was disappointed to see such a prestigious club have so little relevant design. It had become just another tough parkland course. But that was the reason for the changes, and Renaissance had great ideas for maximizing change is specific spots/holes. I'm looking forward to seeing if they got to do all that they wanted. Hopefully Mike Bowline will put together his before-after pictorial soon and we can all judge.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

The cross bunkering on #17 was a Hell's Half Acre type hazard that started just past the driving zone (back in the day).  Even pushing the tee back to the fence line, it's only about 300 yards to get into the first bunker and 330 to fly it into a little patch of turf in the middle of the bunkers ... so it is cross bunkering for the SECOND SHOT actually getting into play off the tee on a par five.

Long hitters will have to lay up and then attack the green from 250 yards, or try to fly the first row of bunkers (which is possible because of the altitude) so they can comfortably go for the green in two.  The bunkers are not deep at all, so if you go for it and fail, you can still play it as the three-shot hole it was intended to be.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()