Excessive Eye Candy and a maintainance nightmare

[Patrick_Mucci]

Whistling Straits ?

But, it sure looks good on TV.

Will that look, which has to cost a fortune to maintain, be adopted by viewers/clubs ?

Is the course excessively penal ?

Is it, and I hate to use the word, unfairly or unreasonably penal ?

[Mike Hendren]

Patrick, I played the course in its infancy as a single digit capper and don't recall it being penal at all.  My recollection is of extreme fairway width - not the ribbons reflected in the aerial coverage.  The rough was also scruffy but not thick and the rather large greens were accomodating.   I also don't recall the ubiquitous peripheral bunkering.  Today the place does look like a bunker farm and as I watched today I couldn't resist trying to identify which specific bunkers I would fill in.  I doubt many have ever been visited and if left to go to seed would likely still accomplish the intended visual effect - perhaps even better so.  I'd let half go to seed this year and another half next year.  It is a very attractive golf course from the ground.  

Mike

[Andy Troeger]

Patrick,
I would be curious just how much some of those superflous bunkers cost to maintain. I have to think most of them get very little action--I can't imagine that they try to touch them all daily. Even with that, I do agree that it has to be an expensive course to maintain. I think the "look" works for Whistling Straits, but I sure hope its not copied elsewhere. Dye has used some similar features elsewhere, including the Irish Course at WS and also French Lick to a certain extent. I don't think it worked as well at either of those courses.

My feeling upon playing it was that the course is hard, but not nearly as hard as it looks. Pete Dye is the master of intimidation and I think that makes the course look more penal than it really is, both in person and on TV. A lot of shots that go down hills into bad spots are actually pretty playable. I feel like we've seen quite a few impressive recovery shots from weird spots this week, and I think the shots are do-able for the regular golfer, at least to get the ball back into play. The fairways are reasonable in most spots (pinching in for some of the professional landing areas) and the greens are generally very large, both of which help. I do think the course probably is pretty penal for a higher handicap or someone without the strength to deal with the tall rough. That could be said about most courses that host major championships, however.

[Ed Oden]

I have not been there in quite some time.  But I too do not recall the course being as penal as it looks, EXCEPT when the wind blows really hard.  Then all of those eye candy bunkers that you think no ball would ever manage to find are suddenly in play.  Same thing with some of the more severe terrrain and growth.

I thought most of the bunkers are maintained as waste areas and not raked for regular play.  Am I wrong about that?   

[David_Elvins]

But, it sure looks good on TV.

Patrick,

In all seriousness, I think that making a course look good on TV is a very underated facet of design. 

How the world's top professional golfers interact with the world's top courses has, and always will be, one of the most important facets of great architecture.  Many people will only ever see the best courses through their TV.  Courses such as Augusta, TPC Sawgrass and Whistling Straights that use bold features to delineate strategy and challenge players must gain some credit for the way they can translate golf architecture into the living room when discussing the merits of the world's top courses, IMO. 

[John Moore II]

Whistling Straits ?

But, it sure looks good on TV.

Will that look, which has to cost a fortune to maintain, be adopted by viewers/clubs ?

That same look is seen, to a certain degree, at Tobacco Road. I think the waste areas like that are probably cheaper to maintain than semi-manicured rough. Most of that stuff at WS can probably be mowed once a year and the bunkers, to a certain degree, don't need to be maintained at all. Just spray some herbicide in them once or twice a year to keep them from grassing over.

Is the course excessively penal ?

For what the pro's are used to, they would probably say yes. Oh have mercy, they actually are penalized for hitting a shot off line and into the junk. I'd bet Stricker won't miss it left on 17 again...

Is it, and I hate to use the word, unfairly or unreasonably penal ?

From the looks of it, no, not for the general public. If you actually play it straight down the fairways and not try to cut corners and such, I would say you can get around that course just fine. Most of the high numbers I've seen this week came from guys trying to cut too much off and getting bitten. Isn't the purpose of a dog-leg, Cape style hole, to get the player to try and cut off as much as he wants and hope he doesn't over estimate? From what I can see in the aerial images, maps, and coverage of play (I've never played the course) it seems that there are plenty of ways to play the hole where you don't have to go directly over the bunkers and waste areas.

[Phil McDade]

Patrick:

A leaderboard (through three rounds) with 10 players at -8 or better, three of them at -10 or better, and the leader at -13, would suggest the course isn't playing excessively penal this week. Granted, it's being played in very soft and -- for all but about nine holes yesterday -- benign weather conditions, and not at US Open-set up conditions, but the pros don't seem to be struggling all that much.

I think it's also important to remember that unlike many clubs that host majors, this isn't the case where the course is set-up too penal for the other weeks of the year, when everyone else gets a chance to play (unlike some private clubs that have hosted majors, where toughened set-ups are made more or less permanent for member play). It's a public course, and part of its marketing/appeal to golfers is being able to play a course designed to test the best players in the world.

[Joel_Stewart]

WS is where I really started having misguided thoughts about Pete Dye.   It starts when you are driving along in the flat corn fields and come to the entrance.  There the mounding begins and the sign is surrounded by sand bunkers.  It never ends.  It is amazing on some holes you can look 100 yards out into the rough and see bunkers.  It's really like nothing else I have seen.  I can't imagine what Herb Kohlers budget is for maintainance? 

[Eric_Terhorst]

I played it once early--I think it was October 2001, in rain, sleet and wind.  The rough had not grown in very much, and you could find your ball and play it if you hit off-line on holes like #8.  I thought it was a blast, except for the 18th hole, which has to be one dumbest things anyone has ever done when moving a jillion yards of dirt.   I remember a lot of bunkers from the first play, but it seems like they are multiplying like rats.  

Then I played it about a month before the 2004 PGA, when they seemed to be growing in  the rough both near and far from the fairways.  The set-up made it much less fun to play, for sure.  But it was still enjoyable and interesting golf.  

I played it again in 2006, with a normal resort set-up, and had a good time, shot maybe 4-5 shots  over my expected score.  I didn't find it penal, but of course I'm not playing a 7500 yard golf course--that's nutty.

I sincerely hope others do not try to imitate this golf course in the length, # of bunkers, and certainly not the 18th hole.  Isn't this one of those designs about which if you have to ask how much it costs to maintain, you can't afford it?

[Michael Whitaker]

Patrick - As you know, courses look very different on TV than they do in person. Whistling Straits is an extreme example because TV's elevated and aerial views reveal all of the bunkering that is hidden behind dunes and slopes. But, as Joel said, there is still a lot to take in from ground level.

As for maintenance:  one would think it would have to be a nightmare. I've read that most of the bunkers are not maintained on a regular basis, however. I wonder how the maintenance budget for WS compares to Arcadia Bluffs... or, Kiawah's Ocean Course, which appears to be much more natural in it's presentation.  

Just wondering for reference, have you ever been to Whistling Straits, Arcadia Bluffs or the Ocean Course at Kiawah?

[Patrick_Mucci]

But, it sure looks good on TV.

Patrick,

In all seriousness, I think that making a course look good on TV is a very underated facet of design. 

How the world's top professional golfers interact with the world's top courses has, and always will be, one of the most important facets of great architecture. 

David, I couldn't disagree more.
Length is THE principle interactive ingredient, not great architecture, unless you consider Valhalla one of the great ones.
Do you think that Maidstone, NGLA, GCGC, Pine Valley, Seminole and other similar courses and their interaction with the wolrd's top professional golfers is one of the most important factors of their architecture ?

Many people will only ever see the best courses through their TV.  Courses such as Augusta, TPC Sawgrass and Whistling Straights that use bold features to delineate strategy and challenge players must gain some credit for the way they can translate golf architecture into the living room when discussing the merits of the world's top courses, IMO.

The merits of any golf course's architecture isn't determined by the scores in relation to par by PGA Tour golfers 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Eric,

The maintainance budget has to be excessive.

You can't groom that vast expanse of grass, with all that mounding and slopes, and maintain the inordinate number of bunkers on a typical budget.

Michael,

If the vast majority of bunkers are hidden behind the dunes, why have them ?

Why spend the money to create unending hazards not visible to the golfer's eye ?

Phil,

As a public access course, if it's meant to "test" the broad spectrum of amateur golfers as a resort or destination course, rounds must take 6 hours.

JKM.

What percentage of the broad spectrum of amateur, retail golfers can hit it straight down the middle, as you advise ?

I don't know many, especially on windy sites

[David_Elvins]

But, it sure looks good on TV.

Patrick,

In all seriousness, I think that making a course look good on TV is a very underated facet of design. 

How the world's top professional golfers interact with the world's top courses has, and always will be, one of the most important facets of great architecture. 

David, I couldn't disagree more.
Length is THE principle interactive ingredient, not great architecture, unless you consider Valhalla one of the great ones.
Do you think that Maidstone, NGLA, GCGC, Pine Valley, Seminole and other similar courses and their interaction with the wolrd's top professional golfers is one of the most important factors of their architecture ?

Many people will only ever see the best courses through their TV.  Courses such as Augusta, TPC Sawgrass and Whistling Straights that use bold features to delineate strategy and challenge players must gain some credit for the way they can translate golf architecture into the living room when discussing the merits of the world's top courses, IMO.

The merits of any golf course's architecture isn't determined by the scores in relation to par by PGA Tour golfers 

Patrick,

You may have misunderstood me.  I am not talking about what professional's score, but how they tackle the course.  Look at the "World Atlas of Golf" one of the best architecture books ever written and full of wonderfull anecdotes about the adventures and misadventures of the world's best players on the world's top courses.

A course like Garden City (which you mention) is a very fine golf course (and a personal favorite of mine) but would a TV viewer be able to understand the subtle strategies in play on so many holes?  I doubt it.  Whereas at the 'larger than life' Augusta, TV viewers gets a sense of the risk reward scenarios that the player faces on the 13th and 15th hole.  The architecture translates to the TV better.  And in the world we live in, this is IMO, an important part of getting people interested in golf and golf course architecture.  It is a factor that is barely considered when discussing the world's best courses and I think it is an error not to do so.  the world's best courses are viewed by far more people on TV than played by golfers.   

To me, Whistling Straights fits into the 'larger than life' category, and makes a good Major venue because so much of it's strategy and architecture translates to TV well.  This should not be poo-pooed. 

[Andrew Summerell]

You may have misunderstood me.  I am not talking about what professional's score, but how they tackle the course.  Look at the "World Atlas of Golf" one of the best architecture books ever written and full of wonderfull anecdotes about the adventures and misadventures of the world's best players on the world's top courses.

A course like Garden City (which you mention) is a very fine golf course (and a personal favorite of mine) but would a TV viewer be able to understand the subtle strategies in play on so many holes?  I doubt it.  Whereas at the 'larger than life' Augusta, TV viewers gets a sense of the risk reward scenarios that the player faces on the 13th and 15th hole.  The architecture translates to the TV better.  And in the world we live in, this is IMO, an important part of getting people interested in golf and golf course architecture.  It is a factor that is barely considered when discussing the world's best courses and I think it is an error not to do so.  the world's best courses are viewed by far more people on TV than played by golfers.   

To me, Whistling Straights fits into the 'larger than life' category, and makes a good Major venue because so much of it's strategy and architecture translates to TV well.  This should not be poo-pooed. 
[/color]

Good architecture is good architecture. It's that simple. Most people who start playing golf have little interest in the architecture, so why should it matter what the courses look like on TV.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I understand what you're saying, but, is it the architecture or the window dressing ?

NGLA will be on TV when the Walker Cup visits in 2013.

I wonder how it will look on TV and, what the viewing public's perception of the architecture will be ?

[Tim Nugent]

It's been awhile since I've been at WS.  From what I've seen on TV, it appears as if many of the reported 1,200 bunkers have actually been connected into long strings of continuous sand.  Anyone able to confirm this?
While many have been decrying them in the name a maintenance dollars (not really as huge an expense as one might envision - especially since now it looks like motorized grooming can occur in a large percentage of them).  Also, remember it isn't a sum zero game. Everything needs maintenance pf some degree. Since that site was artificially capped with sand. planting grass would have actually cost more, initially.  Plus, grass, just like sand, requires maintenance.  So, we're actually talking differing degrees of expense.  Why doesn't this come up when discussing ANGC of SPCC?  And since the fairways are fescue rather than bnet, how much is saved there?

[Phil McDade]

Tim:

I'm nearly certain the maintenance budget of WS is less than a few other well-known Wisconsin courses -- most of the bunkers out there aren't maintained, or minimally so; the place isn't kept all that lush (current views notwithstanding; it's been unusually rainy here in Wisconsin this summer); and there aren't any trees to deal with. They mow fairways and greens and surrounds, and do the bunker work near the greens and a few near the fairways. Other than that, and some routine stuff, I'm not sure that its maintenance demands are that onerous.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Patrick I guess the headline of your thread could read the same and the topic could be Augusta National.

To paraphrase your question about WS's bunkers, how many azaleas does one course need?  Is it architecture or window dressing?

"Excessive" is a relative term.  It costs a lot of money to give Herb Kohler what he wants, but to him--or in comparison to other high-profile courses, it may not be "excessive."  

[JC Urbina]

Patrick,

Mackenzie used a lot of eye candy at Cypress,  any bunkers that you would like to remove there.

How many bunkers do you think need to be on a golf course to remove the EXCESSIVE  word in your opinion?

[Sean_A]

Do folks know of an American championship course which doesn't have an excessive (or typical) maintenance budget?

Ciao 

[Jud_T]

Pat,

The course is only as penal as the tees one chooses and the day's wind speed.

Eric,

Do you think the attemp to look good on TV has had a positive or negative influence on GCA and the costs of the game?

[Roger Wolfe]

Woohoo!  A course I've played many times.

I consider it the "Ocean Course" midwest version.  Easy when the wind is down and you don't
play from 7,500 yards... an absolute nightmare when the wind is up.  Those bunkers look scary
but you really have to hit the ball off the planet to wind up in one.  One of the announcers made
a great comment yesterday when Stricker was flailing around on 17...

"The left side is worse than a lake.  At least you can take a drop out of a lake.  "

Stricker had to really hit a terrible golf shot to end up where he was... as is the case with almost
every bunker at WS.  IMHO.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Jud,

Clearly the focus of television has had a mighty impact on golf and golf courses--just as television impacts everything it touches.  Some positive, some negative impacts.  If I were a super with a bunch of members with zero common sense asking me "why can't we have flowers like they do at Augusta " or "can you dig a new pot bunker just like that one on #6 at Whistling Straits" then I would probably say negative.  

I think David Elvins makes a good point about this course being designed to look good on TV--sort of like Pamela Anderson    May not be your cup of tea,  but alot of guys like that stuff, and if they set out  to do that, bully for them.

When I've played it I enjoyed the Pete Dye golf and the lakeside location without being wowed by the 1200 bunkers. except on 18.  My feeling about the hole being a horrible golf hole is doubled by the fact that the green is surrounded by a bunch of ugly bunkers.

[Tim Nugent]

Phil, exactly the point I was trying to make.  Plus you bring up another aspect - Trees.  Trees can be a sizeable number.  They require pruning, surgery/ branches to be collected after storms, leaves to be raked, trunks to be trimed around and removeal when they die.  But one doesn't ever hear a hue and cry to cut down trees because they cost too much to maintain.

The only bunker that I would remove at WS is that hideous volcano on 17.  It was like nails on a chalkboard the 1st time I saw it and still bothers my senses (but maybe that's what Pete was trying to do).

Sean, what's your definition of a Championship course? And what's an excessive maintenance budget?

Roger, KI was the jumping off point for WS.  Pete said he was able to improve on KI at WS because, with the elevation afforded by the site,  he could terrace it to afford more views of the Lake, which is so vast, it could easily be confused for a sea.  The major deviation was at KI we have a figure 8 routing w/clubhouse in the middle, while at WS it's a double figure 8 - each nine is a figure 8 too.  This allows for shoreline left and right on each nine.  Without the barrier dune of KI, I feel the shoreline is much more interactive at WS where KI is more like Troon - you know the sea is over there - ya just can't see it very often.

[Rick Sides]

When you look at the course its hard to imagine what Pete Dye did with an old airport landing strip as Whistling Straits was prior to becoming a course.  I believe there are close to 1,000 bunkers.  That is a lot of time on the sand pro!