Wisconsin golf tour: Erin Hills/Lawsonia/Blackwolf/Whistling (URLs fixed!)

[Phil McDade]

Richard:

It's the Onion River; you can tell by the smell! It meanders quite a bit through the Bull at Pinehurst Farms, just down the road a bit.

To me, what bugs me about the River Course is that it just looks a bit forced on the land -- it's really beautiful land, incorporating some natural features that are distinct to the area. I just think all those moguls and squiggly fairway lines and odd-shaped bunkers look unnatural. To me, Whistling Straits has always been the better course, because Dye and Kohler had a vision for that course on a nothing piece of land that they pulled off.

[RJ_Daley]

Nope, it is the Sheboygan River.  The Onion runs through The Bull at Pinehurst Farms, but it dumps into the Sheboygan just north of Broadway Street in Sheboygan falls.  Then, the Sheboygan meanders east to the BWR property.  Don't ask me how I know!   

Remember, BWR was built in the mid 1980s, pre-GCA.com as a guiding light for GCA sensibilities, and just coming out of the RTJsr-jr era where Spring Green, Sentry World were the modern standards in WI. and U-Ridge was the contemporary design-construction competition to the Kohler-Dye  efforts.   

[Phil McDade]

I stand corrected!

No doubt Dye and Kohler upped the standards here in Wisconsin -- the excitement and initial success of the River course, and the Women's Open there in '98 (I think that was the year...) helped launch the entire Straits/PGA/Ryder Cup run the state has/will be seeing.

And there are parts of the River course and Meadow Valleys that I do like. I think Dye's greens at the courses are quite good. I just don't like the journey getting there. (And I really liked the old 18th at the River course, now abandoned I believe, with its heroic carry over the river to the double green hard by the river's edge.)

[Bill Seitz]

(And I really liked the old 18th at the River course, now abandoned I believe, with its heroic carry over the river to the double green hard by the river's edge.)

This sounds like the ninth on the Original championship course.  I assume it's part of the Meadows Valley course now, but the only time I played it was with Pat and George at the end of last year when we played it in the original configuration.  As was mentioned above, we missed 5-13 on the River, but it sounds like we played the hole you describe as the ninth hole of the original course.

I was really impressed by the property.  I loved all the salmon that were running in the river at the time we played it.  Quite a trip to be hitting approach shots into greens like the one described above over the heads of fishermen standing in the river. 

[Matt Kardash]

Phil,

I think you are the first person I have ever heard say something negative about the 5th hole. 

I can see how Dye's style might rub people the wrong way, especially since it is not at all in vogue these days. I see Dye's style (especially in the 80s) as not being cutting edge and trendy (Doak, CC, etc), nor being retro enough to have some sort of vintage appeal. It is kind of in that in-between zone where it is quite frankly out of style. Any kind of design goes thru going in and out of fashion. For example, if you see a modern Corvette from 2011 people will drool. If you see a Corvette from the 50s, 60s or 70s people will drool because it has a retro vintage appeal. But I'd argue if you see a Corvette from the 80s or 90s people will not be too impressed; it's not cutting edge enough, or vintage enough...it just languishes in that middle ground. But give it 10 more years and the same people who were saying it was ugly will now start saying that it is a badass car. It's the same with golf course architecture.

[PCCraig]

(And I really liked the old 18th at the River course, now abandoned I believe, with its heroic carry over the river to the double green hard by the river's edge.)

This sounds like the ninth on the Original championship course.  I assume it's part of the Meadows Valley course now, but the only time I played it was with Pat and George at the end of last year when we played it in the original configuration.  As was mentioned above, we missed 5-13 on the River, but it sounds like we played the hole you describe as the ninth hole of the original course.

I was really impressed by the property.  I loved all the salmon that were running in the river at the time we played it.  Quite a trip to be hitting approach shots into greens like the one described above over the heads of fishermen standing in the river. 

Bill, you're right...that was the 9th hole we played. Phil might be thinking of the 1st hole on the Champ layout, which shares the same green as the Meadows 10th. The hole is maintained but is only played as part of the Championship course.

[Bill Seitz]

Bill, you're right...that was the 9th hole we played. Phil might be thinking of the 1st hole on the Champ layout, which shares the same green as the Meadows 10th. The hole is maintained but is only played as part of the Championship course.

Yeah, but that first hole doesn't have a green by the river's edge.  And doesn't the ninth that we played share a green with the 18th on the River (via an albeit small strip of green)?

[Matt Kardash]

It's the 18th of MV that shares a green with the 18th of the River. 18th at MV has a second green where you don't have to carry to river...it's for less skilled players who can't make the heroic carry.

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

I think it was the old closer on the original course -- the one Adam Clayman laments has been lost in the formation of two distinct courses. Blackwolf Run brings that course back sometimes, Brigadoon style, to give folks (like me) who first played it a sense of the old championship course.

#5 isn't necessarily a bad hole -- but heck, I think I could've designed that hole. Fairway through the valley, green benched against a hillside. Maybe environmental set-backs did require that hole to be placed farther away from the river's edge, but if not -- why not take advantage of a wonderful natural resource to create a hole of interest and strategy? The hole just screams "Left" off the tee, because of the river and yawning bunker right, and the green location and SW-to-NE direction of the green certainly encourages an approach shot from the left side (and I'm sure the left bunkers are in play for the big dogs). I like the steep falloff to the green, and how that must be carried the more you are to the right of the fairway. I just think more could've been done with this hole, particularly given the precarious nature (which I like) of Dye's fairway placement and greensites at Whistling Straits.

I like some of Dye's work -- he's clearly been influenced by the Raynor/Macdonald/Langford school of bold architecture and built-up greensites (and dug-in bunkers). But in this setting, it just doesn't seem to fit -- I'd rather see subtle features that incorporate the natural landscape of the area. I'm not arguing for making the course less difficult -- it's admittedly one of the more challenging courses in Wisconsin, and that was clearly Dye and Kohler's intent, which I'm all for. I'd just like to see less gimmicky features, and a better use of the land.

[Andy Troeger]

Phil,
So you don't like the moguls at Blackwolf Run, but the same artificial design style is ok at Whistling Straits even though its IMO just as unnatural looking? Your posts strike me as looking for things to criticize, but then again I often like Dye's style so most of your comments aren't things that would bother me.

Regarding the 5th, I think it would have actually been quite difficult to build a good hole where challenging the River off the tee made much sense. I suppose you could somehow build a green that would open from the right, but that would really fight the slope of the hill on which the green sits, which doesn't make sense. Given that, its a great hole that reminds me of some on the back nine at Milwaukee CC where the river is essentially a pretty backdrop. The strategy of the hole is to challenge the bunker on the left or face a shot over the slope short/right of the green. I think its one of Dye's best and one of Wisconsin's best.

Adam,
I understand your point, but I think the flow of the new course is fine and the quality of the golf holes is better. For the great holes on the Meadow Valley back nine, I think both par fives are unmemorable duds and that even the 6th/7th at the current River are more interesting if not as interesting as the others in that part of the course. I do think there's a difference for folks who played the original configuration first and those that got to look at the current course without knowing the original. Its a comparison of two good options in any case.

[Phil McDade]

Andy:

Here's my take on WStraits -- Dye and Kohler wanted to build a championship/major-worthy course on an unremarkable piece of land -- a former military dump site. Kohler, inspired by trips to Ireland and Scotland, told Dye to build something that would emulate the treeless, seaside, dunesy links of Ireland on the shores of Lake Michigan. Artificial -- yes. But it's a really good golf course -- hard, with lots of choices about how to take on the holes as presented, and some real death-and-glory shots out there. And no cart paths -- a major plus in my book. I'm willing to give Dye a lot of leeway with the Straits, because he manufactured something quite good out of not much at all.

Dye, for my tastes, imposed a number of artificial and contrived features at the River on a wonderfully natural, beautiful piece of land. Great golf courses, to me, ought to fit into the terrain -- there's a lot of "manufactured-ness" to both Pacific Dunes and Old Macdonald, but the manufactured features fit into the overall landscape in such a way that they seem seamless and wholly a part of what was there before. Not so with the River Course -- the mounds, the wiggly fairway lines, the trucked-in rocks lining the man-made pond on #4.

Glad to see you brought up Milwaukee Country Club -- a far superior championship course that doesn't rely on artifice for offering both a pleasant and rigorous round of golf: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36505.0.html Give me 10 rounds between the two courses, and I'd take MCC nine times.

[Andy Troeger]

Phil,
I really liked Milwaukee CC, far more than I expected to be honest. And its within my playing capabilities, which Blackwolf probably is not given my infrequent play these days. I'd still go the other way though and play Blackwolf 7 or 8 times out of 10, however. Ditto Lawsonia or the Straits. I couldn't care less what was there to start and (no offense) think that its silly to give one course a pass for being on a certain type of site and then critique another for the exact same style because the land was better. I'll agree that Blackwolf had a better site than Straits, but I think that lends to why its a better course. I do agree about cart paths generally, but find it a bit ironic that the paths aren't that visible in my personal photos of the course back a few years...and the only ones of Joe's that show prominent cart paths are from the tee. I bet 90% of the golfers playing the first hole don't even pay attention to those mounds--the river is much more prominent unless you're purposely looking right. But if you're looking for them or hit a nice slice, they do exist.  We often see what we're looking for--and both of us are perhaps on the extreme in what we're looking for at BWR.

As a bit of an aside, this is one of those situations where I think the old manufactured courses (Raynor, etc.) seem to get away with unnatural looking shaped features where newer courses get critiqued for them. I actually like the look of Dye's stuff as much or more than Raynor's, but admittedly think he's gotten a bit carried away with more recent efforts such as his French Lick course. Heck, the bunkers at Lawsonia are a bit odd looking, but I still liked the boldness.

[Adam Clayman]

As a bit of an aside, this is one of those situations where I think the old manufactured courses (Raynor, etc.) seem to get away with unnatural looking shaped features where newer courses get critiqued for them. I actually like the look of Dye's stuff as much or more than Raynor's, but admittedly think he's gotten a bit carried away with more recent efforts such as his French Lick course. Heck, the bunkers at Lawsonia are a bit odd looking, but I still liked the boldness.

Andy, I don't think that's quite fair. If the modern architect, fit their bold features into the landscape the way Raynor, et.all did, the moderns would not be criticized. Look at Common Ground for the evidence of a modern design that incorporated the bold features, but, from a distance, they don't stand out. They fit in. How many modern courses have that uni-linear mounding? I know I have seen my fair share. At least now, I throw up when I see it.

That's not to say Pete hasn't made an obscene mound/berm, but those were usually to set the course apart from outside ugly influences.

[Andy Troeger]

Adam,
See I'm not convinced that Raynor's features always blend into the landscape--that's the rub I think. I've always only played a couple of his courses, so I don't have much of a sample. I also should be clear that I don't especially CARE if they always blend in--and the same with Dye's work. I like a fair bit of it because its bold and fun and unique, but again think Dye has gone over the top at times. Perhaps Phil's tolerance for the over the top bit is reached or stretched by Blackwolf Run the way mine is by French Lick and the Irish Course at Whistling Straits. Blackwolf Run doesn't seem as busy to me as either of those courses, but I also didn't find Blackwolf to be all that narrow either.

[Joe Bausch]

The rest of the front nine today.  Get ready to support/criticize Dye again!   

Choose your line carefully on this dogleg left par 4.



Middle tee view:



I think most times you'd prefer being farther left in the FW for the approach:



From short and right of the green:



From right of the green:



From over the green:



This par 5 with a very elevated tee shot and decent carry was fun.



Middle tee view:



Don't walk much further of you'll tumble far below!



View after a decent drive (this view reminds me of a par 5 at the Pete Dye Golf Club):



If you wish, you can layup up short of the fork in the road to have 130 yards in:



View from the 'high road':



Bunker left:



From right of the green looking back down the fw:



Now onto a very interesting, shall I say controversial par 4.



Middle tee view:  play an iron out left, or swing hard and try to drive the green going right.  I find those newly planted trees right at the creek bank a head scratcher.  Or maybe they are there to scare the bogey golfer to not try the hero line?



Approach shot view if you play safe out to the left:



Fairway runs all the way to the green if you take the hero line:



From left of the green looking back:



From over the green:

[Kalen Braley]

That 9th hole just may be the 1st triple fairway I've seen...although, 16 at Bandon Dunes may qualify.

I'm thinking its a terrific idea with all the options off the tee.  So why not just chop down ALL of the trees and let the players hit it where they like.  Why have that right option be so perilous and the left so safe.  It seems a medium risk middle route utilizing that middle fairway would be good to.

[Matt Kardash]

I think the 7th hole is one of the underrated holes on the course. I think it's a fun little hole.

Yeah, I am really not sure why they decided to plant those trees on the right side of 9. As of right now though they don't seem to be in play though. The 9th surely is a very original hole. I know in Dye's book he recounts a story of standing on the 9th hole in the pouring rain thinking it was the best hole he ever created (at that time, at least).

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

The 7th at the River is a good hole; I've always liked it.

The 8th -- eh, I'm not a big fan of dueling fairways, so its appeal is a bit lost on me.

The 9th -- I like what Dye was trying to do here, and he does incorporate the river into play in a significant way. Just seems a bit gimmicky -- it sort of screams "Options here!" Langford's triple-option short par 4 8th at Lawsonia is a better hole.

[Andy Troeger]

The 7th is a pretty solid hole--just not as flashy or dramatic as many of the other holes on this part of the course. I think you could make a solid argument that its still better than some of the starting holes (although I do like #1).

I think the 8th might be the best hole of on the course with lots of ways to play and lots of options regardless of your ability and style of play. And to go further I'll say its my favorite hole in Wisconsin (out of the Kohler complex, Milwaukee CC, and Lawsonia). You could make arguments for others to be sure, but its up there minimum (regardless of what Phil says!) 

The 9th is a bit confusing for the first time player--its certainly busy. I think its probably a better hole after you've seen it a few times and really understand the options that are there and what actually works best. I think its a tough hole to understand the first time around but I do like the concept.

[PCCraig]

These middle holes on the River are awesome, isn't Adam Clayman nuts for thinking that the existing holes are better??   

I think the 7th is pretty similar off the tee to many of Dye's other mid length par-4's, where the obvious strategy is to hug the bunker for the best angle to the green. However the green complex there is really neat and makes the risk / reward really significant.

The 8th is a cool hole. Off the tee it looks tight but there is a ton of room to hit it in the fairway. Reachable even for a short knocker like me, it's a fun 2nd shot as you can try to sling it into the green with a right to left ball flight.

The 9th would probably be a little better if they knocked those trees down, which would make the options a little less obvious. However the great part of the hole is that 1) it's really short and even short hitters actually have options off the tee, and 2) if the pin is on the right like it is in the photos above, the temptation to hit it over the water is really high as it's an easy pitch to the pin from just short of the green.

I don't know how it was playing when Joe was there earlier this year, but in recent years they have done an amazing job keeping the course playing really firm and fast.

[Phil McDade]

Andy/Pat:

Great setting, yes, for those middle holes. Great golf architecture? I'm not convinced. Just look at how "busy" these holes look -- Dye pulls out all of the tricks in his bag to force decisions on the golfer, in a setting that begs for a more natural look and feel to the golfing.

Here we have bunkers and mounding left, rough and deeper rough coming in from the right, a narrowing fairway that -- well now -- splits in two, with a green up there somewhere, fronted by a deep bunker:


More busy-ness in the bunker near the 8th (once again, I'll give credit to Dye for a green of great interest -- to me the clear highlight of the River):


To my eyes, this just looks cluttered and confused. Options -- yes? But in the pursuit of what? It all looks just so forced upon the land -- land that I'd reiterate is beautiful and good golfing material, that doesn't need to be all cluttered up with this manufactured-looking stuff.


Compare to the genius subtlety of Wild Horse, where Mark Saltzman's outstanding thread shows just how a course should blend into its surroundings -- this course isn't 20 years old, but looks like it's been there forever.

Here's the approach shot into the 1st hole; look how the course is at one with the land it came from -- nothing artificial or forced here, with a shaggy look to the blowout bunkers that resembles the tall grasses of the Nebraska plains.


This from behind the 3rd green; again, look how the course simply blends into the natural surrounds. No artifice needed (or thankfully used) here:


The tee shot of the par 5 6th -- beautiful in its simplicity, nothing cluttering up the landscape, the fairway just seems to bleed off into the horizon. But it's a shot that gives pause to the golfer, as the fairway movements hints at a dogleg right, but the outcome of chewing off too much of the corner is unknown to the golfer on the tee.


Three views of the par 4 10th -- this in an architect(s) willing to let the land do the work. Look how seamlessly this hole blends into the natural surrounds:

[PCCraig]

Phil:

A stark contrast...but we're comparing two totally different properties, no?

The Kohler property is a dramatic piece of land...would a low key design with subtle features like at Wild Horse get lost on a property like that?

Erin Hills is good example of building a minimalist design on a bold property, which is a theory many on here are big proponents of...yet you don't hear many positive reviews.

Just a thought...but I think the bold features Dye built actually balances the aesthetics of the course, to match the bold natural features already there.

[SL_Solow]

I suspect much of the criticism of Erin Hills is related to the execution rather than the concept.  As to the River, I have played it in all of its iterations from its opening. I enjoy the course and I like the new holes a lot.  I have a different criticism.  It is based , in part, on my game, single digit, mediun length, good short game.  I have found that most of the "risk/reward" elements are illusory.  If a player is interested in scoring rather than "trying shots", in virtually every circumstance he will be better off ignoring the reward and eliminating risk.  The conservative path is invariably better because the cost for failure on the risky shot far exceeds any reward and the difficulty of the "next shot" if one plays it safe is usually not too bad.  I confess that it is tough to stay disciplined enough to follow this game plan, but when I have, my scores have been surprisingly low for such a tough course and others who have taken this advice have experienced similar results.  So my conclusion is that the ratio between risk and reward is "off".  Perhaps it changes for a long hitter.

[Andy Troeger]

Phil,
I'm not surprised based on your comments that you are looking for subtlety. The things you don't like about the River are mainly based on the look, which I like because its generally dramatic and interesting. There's a lot going on, yes. I think his style works well at Blackwolf, which is a bold property with bold features.  While I'd like to go to a place like Wild Horse to see it for myself, I find that in photos its perhaps too subtle for my eye and its look doesn't appeal to me as much. It takes about 2 seconds for me to move on to the next photo where a place like Blackwolf requires closer examination to see what's going on. I like that. Erin Hills is a bit of the same thing--and perhaps why I haven't played it in trips to Wisconsin. Sometimes these courses appeal to me more in person than in the photos, but not always.

Blackwolf is also designed to be very difficult, which doesn't appeal to everyone.

SL,
I think your comments apply to most of Dye's work. The "risk" option looks so dang appealing, but it usually too dangerous to be worth it. They are fun to try though, which creates the quandary.

[Joe Bausch]

Time to begin the back nine at the River course, which starts with a par 3.



Middle tee view:



From short of the green:



From the back right of the green, where I believe part of this bunker has been sodded over:



Big sweeping to the right par 5, running along side the river.



Middle tee view:



View back to the tees:



Here are some more recently planted trees, I think to replace some lost ones, which doesn't add to the hole visually, IMHO.



My second shot went into the left rough leaving this view for the approach:



From near the left bunker:



From just over the green:



Choose your line off the tee, left being a longer carry over water with a better line in to the green:



Middle tee view:



That ball is in decent position, but better is farther left:


From short of the green which is pretty close to the water:



Nice view here from over the green (gosh I'd hate to be the fellow that conks a kayaker on this hole!):