A Mammoth Question

[Kyle Harris]

Having just completed a anti-clockwise tour around Lake Michigan, my recent round at Mammoth Dunes is fresh on my mind (By the way, I loved Lawsonia). The reviews from people within my circle were mixed with the consistent timbre of an opinion not quite discrete enough for discussion. Instead, the uncertainty seemed deferred and fraught with qualified statements of enjoyment. (I had fun but...).

I had great fun at Mammoth Dunes and would play it again in a heartbeat. The golf course is massive with fairway corridors that seem to bound over, under, around and through the property. Center-line bunkers dot the landscape and the golfer is free to swing away. Greens serve to collect and funnel shots from all manner of lie and location. Rejection features are few and far between - often present only because of a tight lie around perched green on one side or the other.

Therein, I think, lay the crux of a golfer's feelings about the place.

There is no tension. For every center-line hazard a perfectly good golf hole, in appropriate scale, awaits on either side. Consider the opener, a two-tiered fairway every bit of 120 yards wide confronts the golfer with a classic high-road/low-road option. Cresting the high right ridge takes a massive drive and grants the golfer a look down upon the green. Staying low and left permits a flatter lie and perhaps a bit more roll-out but with a look at a great that doesn't seem prone to favor one side or the other. Both options are workable but also present the question: Would the golf hole be just as effective if only one side of the fairway were in play? This question repeats itself throughout the round.

I made a point in my Feature Interview of July to emphasize the aspect of negative space in the golf course and that the architect's choices in this regard often made as loud, or even louder, statement about the golf course. It had never occurred to me until playing Mammoth Dunes that negative space on a golf course could be all but eliminated from design. Little negative space exists and that which does is simply an exigent of geometry as a shot 45 degrees offline will more often than not remain within the grass lines. Compounding this width is the fact that on several greens my playing partner and I played shots on lines as much as 20 yards apart only to find them resting within mere feet of each other.



Somehow, the scale of the place still works, but perhaps we have reached the limit of what "big" should look like. Obviously choices were made in terms of routing but the feel of the result is one of solving routing issues by adding 20 yards on either side of the fairway and calling it good. Mammoth Dunes, for me, seems to straddle the line between "compelling essay question" and "open-ended question" perhaps a little too much in that there are precious few "wrong" answers to the questions posed through the round.


Regardless of your opinion of the place I'm not sure a golf course has quite broached this level of scale and that is noteworthy.

[James Brown]

Sounds like you are saying it’s just too wide.  And if lots of shots from dramatically different approach angles finish in the same spot, we can’t really call it strategic either exactly.  So maybe Mammouth has inaugurated a fun new style entirely?   It’s seems on a completely different scale. 


I think we asked a lot of the same kinds of questions about some of Mike Stranz’s designs 15 years ago before back-to-natural really caught on. 

[PCCraig]

I think the issue with Mammoth Dunes is that the greens are, generally, really boring.


A massively wide fairway is fine, but it would be great if a preferred line off the tee would give a player the preferred line toward a pin.


I forgot the exact hole number, 8 or so, the short par 4 with the boomerang green illustrates my point. It's a fun green and the pin position makes you at least think about approach angle.


It's strange as I think DMK can build some really cool greens. A great example from him would be Huntsman Springs.


I'm sure MD will be a huge hit with most of the guests. But overall its a bit of a "dumb blonde" to me. Looks pretty but the experience is a bit shallow in strategy.

[Mark Pritchett]

Pat,


I thought you summed MD up perfectly in your post on the "In Praise of Sand Valley" thread.  Funny for all the "width" at MD, the best holes are the Par 3's.

[Chris_Blakely]

I think the issue with Mammoth Dunes is that the greens are, generally, really boring.


A massively wide fairway is fine, but it would be great if a preferred line off the tee would give a player the preferred line toward a pin.


I forgot the exact hole number, 8 or so, the short par 4 with the boomerang green illustrates my point. It's a fun green and the pin position makes you at least think about approach angle.


It's strange as I think DMK can build some really cool greens. A great example from him would be Huntsman Springs.


I'm sure MD will be a huge hit with most of the guests. But overall its a bit of a "dumb blonde" to me. Looks pretty but the experience is a bit shallow in strategy.

The sixth green is the boomerang green and one that I would put up as very interesting.


Seventh is the foundation bunker hole.


Eighth is the island of green surrounded by sand also a green I liked.


Chris

[Kyle Harris]

I never found it a question of "too wide" since the width does frame golf features.


The more interesting observation for me is whether or not the width exists because so much of the site lent itself to golf. Even the best sites will force a choice between one good or great feature and another. Here the idea seemed to be "include everything."

[Sean_A]

I never found it a question of "too wide" since the width does frame golf features.

The more interesting observation for me is whether or not the width exists because so much of the site lent itself to golf. Even the best sites will force a choice between one good or great feature and another. Here the idea seemed to be "include everything."

Kyle

Yes, it is somewhat common that features wide of fairways are not used.  Often, the features were used, but fairways have been narrowed.  The site for Mammoth must be incredible if that many features were grabbed!

I have to ask because the concept eludes me...what is negative space?

Ciao

[Eric Smith]

How about tension created by playing a match versus another human being?

[Kyle Harris]

How about tension created by playing a match versus another human being?

Sure, but this is a contrivance of the match and when a hole offers so many options as to have no wrong answer strategically why leave the driving range?

Sean A.,


Depending on the filter negative spaces are the areas not included in golf. For play, this is always a green-to-tee walk (as the primary example). For architecture, it's where the architect decided to stop building/planting golf.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I never found it a question of "too wide" since the width does frame golf features.


The more interesting observation for me is whether or not the width exists because so much of the site lent itself to golf. Even the best sites will force a choice between one good or great feature and another. Here the idea seemed to be "include everything."

I loved Mammoth and its scale.
Here are some examples of scale, shot angles and "correct" paths to the hole (in no order):


1. On the par 5 18, I hit a crisp tee shot down the right side - the easier side to hit. One of my playing partners who hits it the same as me chose the left side for his shot.


- I had 255 into the green
- He had 215
- We were easily 75 yards apart from each other
- He birdied, I left second shot in right side bunker and made par


2. On the drivable par 4 14th, my playing partner hit a high straight shit that bounced right off the middle mound and left an awkward pitch from a bad angle to the green.


- I hit a hard, low draw that bounded over the mound and released onto the green
- I birdied, he parred


3. On the par 5 15th, my partner hit a crisp straight tee shot down the right side. I hit same hard lor draw down the middle
- He had 260 into green
- My tee shot released nicely into the power spot and i had about 200 into the green.


Wide fairways that give options and advantages to those who play the angles is a really cool feature to this course.
On the par 4, referenced above, with the horseshoe green, i hit a hybrid dead down the middle yet had a VERY awakward and blind angle into the green that left me uncertain over my approach shot.


My partner tugged his shot left near the sand and had a clear view at the hole.


You get my point.

[Kyle Harris]

Ian,


I think you're also supporting my idea because that's only three holes - all of which still feature collection areas. All your foibles were the result of poor tactics and execution. Yes, playing away from the hole off the tee (as you did on 18) will leave a longer shot into the green - in High School I called that "geometry." If you could carry that ball 255 yards the green would do very little to shed a poorly considered shot. Flail away and you're good. A golfer with the distance wouldn't have to spend a shot setting up a preferred angle.


I was in a similar position as your partner on 14 and could overcome the awkward lie and banked it off the high left side to watch the ball trickle toward the hole - I had 20 feet but missed the putt. Execution. Not strategy.


I bottom grooved my shot into the horseshoe green hole and therefore use the back stop. My playing partner even wondered aloud why he bothered to try to hit the ball on the number when practically everything around the green moved the ball toward the hole if you were on line.


The idea is that you could shed large portions of these fairways and still have meaningful and strategic decisions that perhaps are a bit more tense and demanding. It was very telling to me that the first time I felt a poorly struck or considered shot would be shed into trouble was the 13th hole.


The point in this thread is to explore the overriding feeling I have that "while fun, the course just feels... different." I enjoyed playing there and look forward to my next time.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Kyle - I hear you. There are other examples, but my ringing work phone and fear of excessive verbosity cut short my editorials...;p-)


It's a fun course and i think the greens will be better with time.
They were very slow especially the 5 (or so) new greens on the back nine. (I played in late June of this year.)


FWIW - my favorite holes were #s 2 and 3.
Green on #2 was interesting and demanded some thought as it sloped away from the approach angle.


But, I get Pat's point, too.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Sounds like you are saying it’s just too wide.  And if lots of shots from dramatically different approach angles finish in the same spot, we can’t really call it strategic either exactly.  So maybe Mammouth has inaugurated a fun new style entirely?   It’s seems on a completely different scale. 


I think we asked a lot of the same kinds of questions about some of Mike Stranz’s designs 15 years ago before back-to-natural really caught on.

Not too wide, but without consequences. Which means the green designs didn't imply a better/smaller target for a particular hole location. At a course I know well with wide fairways we are constantly aiming for portions of fairway for particular hole locations. There are many occasions where I've been close to my playing partner, both in the fairway, but with completely different shots/tactics/strategies to get to the hole.


Cheers

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle - I hear you. There are other examples, but my ringing work phone and fear of excessive verbosity cut short my editorials...;p-)


It's a fun course and i think the greens will be better with time.
They were very slow especially the 5 (or so) new greens on the back nine. (I played in late June of this year.)


FWIW - my favorite holes were #s 2 and 3.
Green on #2 was interesting and demanded some thought as it sloped away from the approach angle.


But, I get Pat's point, too.

It is certainly the only course I can think of where I actually could see two different but compelling golf holes contained within one fairway. #9 is a great example: I was left of left but still had a shot from over there - a shot akin to a William Flynn reverse camber type hole. My playing partner took the direct route. Completely different golf hole.


Both would work well individually and both would still be considered "strategic" in some form.


I may be with you on #2 and 3. I need to play it more. #2-5 is certainly a strong stretch of golf.

[PCCraig]

I think the best holes at MD are the par-3's. Some really good shots like the uphill 4th, the island 8th, the gorgeous 13th, and the interesting 16th with the slope on the right. None are particularly "strategic," but they are a good set of par-3s with defined shots.


I liked the short par-4s like the 10th, and horseshoe green, and the 14th...but again the only real choice you make is how hard you want to hit your driver.   

[PCCraig]

Green on #2 was interesting and demanded some thought as it sloped away from the approach angle.

#2 makes no sense to me. The best angle to the green is from the right rough? And that's on a hole with a 200 yard wide fairway?


But if you hit it down the left side, close to the bunkers, you have an impossible approach to a left pin given the dune/slope short of the green.

[Niall C]

Kyle

I haven’t played MD but in some respects what you are saying sounds similar to my own thoughts on Castle Stuart and width. For my money the more interesting holes at CS are the ones down by the water where the holes are more constrained.

On the upper holes where there is a lot more width, it just strikes me that its primary purpose of the width is simply to keep the ball in play. On many of the holes I don’t think it really matters what side of the fairway you are on for the approach.

Now I quite like CS, it’s hard not to given the conditioning and the general ambience, however like you have with MD I have a BUT with it, and it is this, after playing it about half a dozen times in the space of 3 or 4 years I found the course became less interesting after every subsequent play. I’m not sure that should happen with a great course.

In that respect I note you’ve only played MD the once. I’ll be interested to hear how you get on in future visits.

Niall     

[Kyle Harris]

Niall,


I think there is a difference between keeping a ball in play v. having a shot to score. Mammoth Dunes still allows for the latter.


I'll get back within the next year or so, hopefully.

[Kalen Braley]

Kyle,


Excellent thread topic.  Still trying to get my mind wrapped around the kind of width being reported.  50 yards seems plenty wide, 120+ yards wide is hard to visualize.


P.S.  I guess its an ideal course for someone like me whose plenty crooked off the tee.

[Daryl David]

If you could carry that ball 255 yards the green would do very little to shed a poorly considered shot. Flail away and you're good. A golfer with the distance wouldn't have to spend a shot setting up a preferred angle.


I was in a similar position as your partner on 14 and could overcome the awkward lie and banked it off the high left side to watch the ball trickle toward the hole - I had 20 feet but missed the putt. Execution. Not strategy.


I bottom grooved my shot into the horseshoe green hole and therefore use the back stop. My playing partner even wondered aloud why he bothered to try to hit the ball on the number when practically everything around the green moved the ball toward the hole if you were on line.

The point in this thread is to explore the overriding feeling I have that "while fun, the course just feels... different." I enjoyed playing there and look forward to my next time.

This sounds eerily similar to the early discussions of Gamble Sands.  I always wondered how boring it would be to be a caddie at Gamble Sands.  It would always be "pound it off the tee, don't worry about right or left".  Then it would be "pound it toward the green, a shot right, left or long will funnel down to an incredibly flat green center".  Advice on the putt would be "hit it straight, not much in this 40 footer"  At the end of the round, your player would have had a ball and shot his lowest score ever, but would scratch his head and wonder what he was paying you for.  Mammoth sounds the same.

[Peter Pallotta]

The fairway width-green contour relationship described here -- ie, the *absence* of any such meaningful relationship -- speaks to me of a lack of golf course architecture, at least as I understand & use that term.

But I've been not to try to separate out the architecture from the golf course. So maybe this is an example of the course -- and more so the 'experience' - standing apart from (and succeeding well, according to the magazine rankings, independently of) the 'design'.

P

[Jim Nugent]

Still trying to get my mind wrapped around the kind of width being reported.  50 yards seems plenty wide, 120+ yards wide is hard to visualize.

Jordan Spieth could have used that much width on some tee shots he hit the past few years. 

[Kalen Braley]

Still trying to get my mind wrapped around the kind of width being reported.  50 yards seems plenty wide, 120+ yards wide is hard to visualize.

Jordan Spieth could have used that much width on some tee shots he hit the past few years.

Must. Resist.      Nice taunt Jim!

[Michael George]

I have not played Mammoth Dunes, but many of the comments on this string seem to contradict many praised aspects of playing the Old Course at St. Andrews.  In modern terms, the same has been said about Old Macdonald.


For years, this site has been largely dedicated to the thought that fun/strategic golf is much better than stern/championship golf. 


Are people saying that Kidd went too far with Mammoth Dunes.  Is it too fun and not demanding enough on the golfer?  Or is it just that it lacks strategic interest?

[Daryl David]

Are people saying that Kidd went too far with Mammoth Dunes.  Is it too fun and not demanding enough on the golfer?  Or is it just that it lacks strategic interest?

No such thing as too much fun. Lack of strategic interest is the issue. When a course is not asking golfers to solve a puzzle, something is lost. I think that is the emotion expressed by a few I know when they finished playing Mammoth, “fun, but something is missing”