WEBVTT - Golf Architecture Mailbag Redux and How to Do a Low-Cost Muni Renovation 0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.560 I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset. 0:00:02.680 --> 0:00:04.960 When I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset. 0:00:05.040 --> 0:00:06.320 And when I find my ball in. 0:00:06.280 --> 0:00:09.000 A bride egg Friday Egg, the dread and Frida Egg 0:00:09.080 --> 0:00:11.959 Frida Egg, Frida egg Egg Frida Egg bride egg Lie, 0:00:11.960 --> 0:00:14.400 I'm about ready to run off the golf course game. 0:00:23.600 --> 0:00:37.360 And welcome to the Frida Egg Golf Podcast. I'm Garrett Morrison, 0:00:37.440 --> 0:00:40.560 and today we have a quick golf architecture mail bag 0:00:40.600 --> 0:00:44.640 with Andy Johnson, followed by a discussion with the superintendent 0:00:45.120 --> 0:00:49.040 on how to do low cost renovations at municipal golf courses. 0:00:49.520 --> 0:00:52.159 The superintendent's name is Will Benson, and he works at 0:00:52.240 --> 0:00:55.600 Laurel Wood Golf Course, which is a municipal nine hole 0:00:55.640 --> 0:00:59.000 course in Eugene, Oregon. Now, in addition to maintaining the 0:00:59.080 --> 0:01:02.360 turf at Laurel Wood, Will actually holds the contract with 0:01:02.480 --> 0:01:05.440 the city and helps to manage the course, so he 0:01:05.560 --> 0:01:08.480 has a very direct stake in the health and success 0:01:08.720 --> 0:01:11.679 of the facility. And over the years he's made some 0:01:11.680 --> 0:01:15.720 significant improvements to the golf course, including building new greens 0:01:15.760 --> 0:01:18.800 and re routing a few holes. In the process, he's 0:01:18.840 --> 0:01:22.560 become kind of an expert on how to carry out 0:01:22.720 --> 0:01:27.360 very efficient, very cheap renovations at municipal golf courses. And 0:01:27.400 --> 0:01:29.960 that's a big question at the moment, right It's how 0:01:30.000 --> 0:01:34.080 can local courses make improvements when the margins are so tight? 0:01:34.680 --> 0:01:36.959 I think Laurelwood Golf Course is a good answer to 0:01:37.000 --> 0:01:39.720 that question. Not the only answer, but a good one, 0:01:40.200 --> 0:01:42.319 all right. So that's coming up in the back half 0:01:42.319 --> 0:01:44.840 of the episode. First, though, Andy and I are going 0:01:44.880 --> 0:01:48.600 to field a few golf architecture themed mail bag questions, 0:01:48.720 --> 0:01:51.720 so right after this break you'll hear from me and 0:01:51.720 --> 0:02:00.360 Andy Johnson. This episode of the Friday Golf pot Cast 0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:03.280 is brought to you by Toro, Up and Down, Ham 0:02:03.320 --> 0:02:06.000 and Egg. To the list of great golf pairings, we 0:02:06.040 --> 0:02:10.600 can now add the Toro Workman MDX and Electrification. For 0:02:10.639 --> 0:02:13.240 more than two decades, the Workman MDX has been the 0:02:13.280 --> 0:02:18.240 Superintendent's trustees sidekick, a rugged utility vehicle for whatever the job. 0:02:18.680 --> 0:02:22.839 And now it's the same except the Workman MDX Lithium 0:02:23.120 --> 0:02:27.240 is powered by Toro's proprietary hyper cell lithium ion batteries, 0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:31.440 meaning the chargers on board ready to be connected to 0:02:31.560 --> 0:02:34.839 any standard one hundred and twenty volt power outlet. Less 0:02:34.880 --> 0:02:38.000 time checking batteries and more time getting stuff done with 0:02:38.080 --> 0:02:42.079 the same power and durability. That's another great golf pairing, 0:02:42.320 --> 0:02:46.240 a win win. Visit Toro dot com, slash golf and 0:02:46.360 --> 0:02:49.320 reach out to your local Toro distributor for more information. 0:02:54.000 --> 0:02:57.080 All right, Andy, we're doing part two of the Golf 0:02:57.160 --> 0:03:00.440 Architecture mail Bag. We had some leftover question from our 0:03:00.520 --> 0:03:03.840 last episode on Friday. You ready to get into it? 0:03:04.320 --> 0:03:06.359 Yeah, absolutely ready to go. 0:03:06.880 --> 0:03:09.520 All right. I got a few questions queued up here 0:03:09.639 --> 0:03:12.000 and we'll just knock a few of them out. We're 0:03:12.000 --> 0:03:13.880 not going to get to all of them. I think 0:03:13.880 --> 0:03:16.720 we had something like sixty five questions in response to 0:03:16.760 --> 0:03:20.280 your call for questions, so not possible to cover all 0:03:20.320 --> 0:03:22.280 of them, but I'll pick out a few of them 0:03:22.320 --> 0:03:24.679 that I think we can dig into a little bit. 0:03:25.200 --> 0:03:28.079 The first one that I'd like to address, and I'm 0:03:28.080 --> 0:03:30.480 not sure it's a question we can necessarily answer with 0:03:30.600 --> 0:03:38.720 much authority, but it's from Antifaldo or antifa Oldo. His 0:03:38.880 --> 0:03:44.440 question is is Marco Simone scare quotes? Good? Now? Have 0:03:44.600 --> 0:03:47.960 you looked much at Marco Simone? Have you looked at 0:03:47.960 --> 0:03:50.280 the videos that have come out covering the golf course. 0:03:50.320 --> 0:03:52.680 Do you have a sense of whether this course is 0:03:52.720 --> 0:03:53.560 going to be any good. 0:03:54.360 --> 0:03:56.320 I've watched, I've watched a little bit. 0:03:56.480 --> 0:03:58.280 I mean the good I think the good news for 0:03:58.360 --> 0:04:02.800 golf fans is that for a Ryder Cup of President's Cup, 0:04:03.360 --> 0:04:08.440 the least important aspect of the competition is maybe I 0:04:08.520 --> 0:04:12.240 mean not least important of all competitions. 0:04:12.840 --> 0:04:15.720 Golf course is like, you know, the least. 0:04:15.560 --> 0:04:21.000 Important comparatively to like a major championship or such. I'm 0:04:21.040 --> 0:04:23.320 not saying like if you play a great if you 0:04:23.320 --> 0:04:25.920 play this event in a great golf course, the event's 0:04:25.960 --> 0:04:28.880 gonna be exponentially better. It's not like the golf course 0:04:28.920 --> 0:04:32.640 doesn't matter. But team match play can carry an event 0:04:32.839 --> 0:04:37.080 because it's really about the matches, the personalities in the 0:04:37.120 --> 0:04:38.560 matches and different things. 0:04:39.480 --> 0:04:40.280 That said with. 0:04:40.400 --> 0:04:43.520 Marco Simone, I don't think it's gonna be very good. 0:04:44.120 --> 0:04:47.599 It's in Italy, Like, there's not a lot of golf 0:04:47.600 --> 0:04:50.839 fans there. It's you know, it's. 0:04:49.839 --> 0:04:53.760 Not in Italy. Are you saying Italian golf architecture has 0:04:53.800 --> 0:04:55.600 not had a renaissance. This is. 0:04:57.760 --> 0:05:00.599 It's in Italy. So like the other things, there's no 0:05:00.680 --> 0:05:04.080 golf fans. It's like France, right, Like people don't care 0:05:04.120 --> 0:05:07.560 about golf in France. They don't care about golf in Italy. 0:05:08.080 --> 0:05:10.920 And frankly, it's not you know, from what I've seen, 0:05:11.040 --> 0:05:13.440 I haven't seen it in person, it's not a very 0:05:13.480 --> 0:05:17.200 inspiring golf design. But again, you know, this is about 0:05:17.240 --> 0:05:22.359 the team match play format, and you know, I think 0:05:22.600 --> 0:05:25.320 I think like a great example of how golf course 0:05:25.360 --> 0:05:29.039 matters would be the Walker Cup. You know, if if 0:05:29.040 --> 0:05:31.279 the Walker Cup was played at the Old Course or 0:05:31.360 --> 0:05:34.760 Marco Simone, what would generate more interest? 0:05:35.320 --> 0:05:39.000 You know? Yeah, the Ryder Cup is sort of coasting, 0:05:39.839 --> 0:05:43.920 maybe not coasting, but relying on its reputation, and of 0:05:43.960 --> 0:05:47.239 all events, the Ryder Cup can do that. It doesn't 0:05:47.279 --> 0:05:49.640 have to go to any kind of golf course that 0:05:49.680 --> 0:05:54.000 we've heard of or that we find historically or architecturally significant, 0:05:54.000 --> 0:05:56.520 because it's the Ryder Cup. And I think that's the 0:05:56.600 --> 0:05:59.520 main point here. Now. I have looked at a few 0:05:59.520 --> 0:06:02.280 of the videos of Marcus Simone that have come out. 0:06:02.560 --> 0:06:06.320 I watched the match between Sally and DJ that they 0:06:06.360 --> 0:06:10.000 put out on the No Laying Up channel, and those guys, 0:06:10.040 --> 0:06:13.720 I mean, they're good players and they got murdered by 0:06:13.760 --> 0:06:18.080 this course, and my impression, not having been on site, 0:06:18.200 --> 0:06:22.640 my impression is that it has some of the kind 0:06:22.640 --> 0:06:27.880 of trendy aspects of modern golf course design. You have 0:06:28.080 --> 0:06:32.320 these kind of wild, undulating greens. But to me, it 0:06:32.360 --> 0:06:36.080 didn't look like there was necessarily any rhyme or reason 0:06:36.720 --> 0:06:39.920 to the undulations in these greens, like they didn't really 0:06:40.040 --> 0:06:45.440 have a clear strategic purpose that related back to the whole. 0:06:45.560 --> 0:06:48.920 They are just sort of wild. And that's one thing 0:06:48.960 --> 0:06:54.400 that I've seen in a good amount of mediocre modern 0:06:54.440 --> 0:06:58.679 golf architecture that I'm not a big fan of. Now, 0:06:58.920 --> 0:07:02.360 there's a lot of land movement on this site. I 0:07:02.400 --> 0:07:04.000 don't know if it's a good piece of land or 0:07:04.000 --> 0:07:05.680 a bad piece of land. I'd really have to be 0:07:05.800 --> 0:07:08.640 on site. It seems like that's going to be a 0:07:08.760 --> 0:07:13.880 big factor in the Ryder Cup because of the drama 0:07:14.160 --> 0:07:16.840 of the topography. There are going to be a lot 0:07:16.880 --> 0:07:19.760 of obscured sitelines, a lot of blind drives, and especially 0:07:19.840 --> 0:07:22.560 a lot of blind approaches where you can't see the 0:07:22.600 --> 0:07:24.480 surface of the green because the green is way up 0:07:24.480 --> 0:07:28.080 above you and you can't see it. Now, something that 0:07:28.120 --> 0:07:30.960 confuses me about the course and it's set up, and 0:07:31.000 --> 0:07:33.200 you and Joseph sort of addressed this in a podcast 0:07:33.280 --> 0:07:37.120 that you did a couple of weeks ago. But looking 0:07:37.200 --> 0:07:40.560 at the makeup of the teams, looking at the distribution 0:07:40.960 --> 0:07:46.640 of players who are very powerful without necessarily being accurate 0:07:47.040 --> 0:07:50.280 on an elite level, I don't really understand why so 0:07:50.480 --> 0:07:54.480 many fair ways. Why the European team, which is of 0:07:54.520 --> 0:07:59.320 course setting up the course the European Tour, why so 0:07:59.400 --> 0:08:03.280 many fairway bottleneck at kind of the three twenty mark. 0:08:04.040 --> 0:08:07.120 This would make sense if this were more of a 0:08:07.280 --> 0:08:12.440 traditional comparison between the teams or contrast between the teams, 0:08:12.440 --> 0:08:16.040 where the Americans have all the big hitters who maybe 0:08:16.080 --> 0:08:18.480 spray it a little bit, but the Europeans have a 0:08:18.520 --> 0:08:21.440 lot of those players too, and so why would it 0:08:21.520 --> 0:08:25.520 necessarily be advantageous to the European side to have so 0:08:25.640 --> 0:08:28.760 many of these fairways kind of come in at that 0:08:28.800 --> 0:08:30.800 three twenty mark, which I think is going to force 0:08:30.880 --> 0:08:33.280 driver out of the hands of a lot of players 0:08:33.360 --> 0:08:33.920 at this course. 0:08:34.720 --> 0:08:38.199 Yeah, I you know, I'm not sure I would say 0:08:38.400 --> 0:08:40.360 I would, you know, I think a lot of the 0:08:40.480 --> 0:08:47.800 European selections, with especially Ludwig and Oiguard, center around like, hey, 0:08:48.040 --> 0:08:50.120 distance is going to be a huge advantage with the 0:08:50.120 --> 0:08:52.439 short part fours here. You know there's going to be 0:08:52.480 --> 0:08:55.880 three or four short par fours that are potentially driveable. 0:08:56.320 --> 0:08:59.600 So I think that also, you know, lends itself to 0:09:00.080 --> 0:09:03.960 a long hitter. But with the bottleneck, I think accuracy 0:09:04.040 --> 0:09:06.720 is going to be really important, right, Yeah, Like I 0:09:06.720 --> 0:09:09.440 think that. I think it's it's not about just being long. 0:09:09.480 --> 0:09:12.319 It's to be about being long and straight, right if 0:09:12.480 --> 0:09:17.040 if you can take advantage sometimes, So I think that's 0:09:17.200 --> 0:09:20.360 that's the thing. I think the the Europeans generally, like 0:09:20.440 --> 0:09:23.600 if you look at the Europeans, they are longer hitters 0:09:23.640 --> 0:09:28.680 like rom And and Rory and uh when they're yeah, 0:09:28.760 --> 0:09:31.960 when they're going, those are very accurate long hitters. 0:09:32.320 --> 0:09:35.640 Yeah, that's true and is probably pretty accurate too. Some 0:09:35.679 --> 0:09:39.400 of the longer players on the European side are notably 0:09:39.559 --> 0:09:41.440 accurate relative to there. 0:09:41.440 --> 0:09:44.199 Well, and that yes, go down the list, keep going. 0:09:44.280 --> 0:09:47.800 You got Fleetwood, very accurate player, Matty Fits when he's 0:09:47.920 --> 0:09:51.800 cooking is very accurate player, Terrel Hatton very accurate player. 0:09:52.040 --> 0:09:54.360 Yeah, so you have you have a. 0:09:54.320 --> 0:09:59.120 Lot of players that accuracy is is a facet and 0:09:59.440 --> 0:10:02.200 just compare and Obviously this is we aren't talking about 0:10:02.240 --> 0:10:05.360 every player, but like you know, you Scotti shuffler is 0:10:05.360 --> 0:10:09.000 obviously very accurate, but then you get into the Jordan 0:10:09.120 --> 0:10:12.360 Speith that Justin Thomas type players for the US team, 0:10:12.720 --> 0:10:16.800 and those aren't, you know, necessarily as accurate of players. Obviously, 0:10:16.800 --> 0:10:19.000 we haven't gone player by player, and we aren't going 0:10:19.040 --> 0:10:22.360 to go player by player. But I think the one 0:10:22.400 --> 0:10:26.040 of the residing traits with with the European team is 0:10:26.120 --> 0:10:29.880 that if you probably put together a total driving stat 0:10:29.960 --> 0:10:32.520 And I have not done this research. I didn't expect 0:10:32.520 --> 0:10:35.840 to be talking about this for a architecture mailbag, but 0:10:35.840 --> 0:10:38.280 if you put together a total driving stat I think 0:10:38.320 --> 0:10:42.560 that they would probably have a pretty good advantage there. 0:10:42.920 --> 0:10:46.400 Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And you know, one more note about 0:10:46.400 --> 0:10:49.320 Marcus Simoni. You mentioned the driveable part fours. Those to 0:10:49.360 --> 0:10:52.480 me look like pretty neat holes overall relative to the 0:10:52.480 --> 0:10:54.600 rest of the course. And I would also keep an 0:10:54.640 --> 0:10:59.120 eye out for the finish at Marcus Simone. The last 0:10:59.160 --> 0:11:02.199 couple of holes are pretty fun. You know, there's a 0:11:02.280 --> 0:11:05.360 drivable part four in the mix. There's a very penal 0:11:05.840 --> 0:11:09.880 par three seventeenth hole where there's real stakes as to 0:11:10.520 --> 0:11:13.680 whether you hit the green and then the finisher is 0:11:13.720 --> 0:11:18.920 a risk reward you know, water featury. I mean it's 0:11:18.920 --> 0:11:20.839 a little bit like the golf nasty now you see, 0:11:20.880 --> 0:11:24.560 you see a bit of a formula for these kind 0:11:24.559 --> 0:11:29.080 of European tour led designs that host these big events. 0:11:29.920 --> 0:11:33.120 I think that there's there's certain moves that they have, 0:11:33.400 --> 0:11:36.440 and some of these moves work pretty well. So as 0:11:36.480 --> 0:11:39.080 far as the architecture is concerned, a mixed bag at 0:11:39.120 --> 0:11:41.280 Marcos Simone. Overall, it's not a golf course that I 0:11:41.320 --> 0:11:45.280 would necessarily enjoy playing more than more than many others. 0:11:45.679 --> 0:11:49.760 So yeah, not about the America team, like you know, 0:11:49.840 --> 0:11:53.920 Patrick Cantley and and Morikawa and Xander would all all 0:11:54.000 --> 0:11:56.560 skew is like really good drivers the golf ball if 0:11:56.600 --> 0:12:01.080 you if you blend accuracy with distant right, So. 0:12:01.200 --> 0:12:04.480 Absolutely, yeah, yeah, it might be kind of a wash 0:12:04.640 --> 0:12:07.400 in terms of I'm not I'm not sure how much of. 0:12:07.320 --> 0:12:11.400 All Europeans have a hoblin too. 0:12:11.280 --> 0:12:15.079 That's true, Yeah, yeah, it's yeah when you have Ron 0:12:15.200 --> 0:12:22.160 Rory and Hoveland and some of those other guys. Yeah yeah, yeah, 0:12:22.200 --> 0:12:25.360 I mean his iron play is really the leading characteristic anyway. Well, 0:12:25.400 --> 0:12:28.040 we'll have we'll have plenty of time to discuss the 0:12:28.080 --> 0:12:30.679 differences between the American and European teams in the run 0:12:30.800 --> 0:12:32.680 up to the Ryder Cup, I'm sure in the next 0:12:32.679 --> 0:12:37.160 couple of weeks. But a more pure architecture question that 0:12:37.240 --> 0:12:39.320 I have for you, Andy, I really like this question. 0:12:39.559 --> 0:12:42.640 It's a bit of a thinker. What's the best fair 0:12:42.679 --> 0:12:48.040 way in golf? Not green surrounds, not bunkering, not a vista, 0:12:48.679 --> 0:12:54.080 just fairway shapes, ground movements and contour. The question asker 0:12:54.440 --> 0:12:57.520 sees this as a very underestimated part of great architecture. 0:12:57.760 --> 0:13:01.360 And the question asker's name is Rob Key. So do 0:13:01.400 --> 0:13:02.440 you have any thoughts about this? 0:13:02.520 --> 0:13:04.720 Off the top of you, Yeah, I love this question. 0:13:04.800 --> 0:13:07.880 I had a couple ideas in my head. I think 0:13:07.920 --> 0:13:10.480 one that I immediately always go to is the fourteenth 0:13:10.520 --> 0:13:13.440 hole at Pasta Tiempo, where it has like basically the 0:13:13.480 --> 0:13:17.200 extension of the Brancas that runs through the fairway on 0:13:17.320 --> 0:13:18.240 a diagonal. 0:13:18.640 --> 0:13:20.080 It's just like I think. 0:13:20.120 --> 0:13:22.000 And then the other thing that I think about I 0:13:22.040 --> 0:13:26.800 thought about the sixteenth fairway at Saint Andrews, which has 0:13:26.840 --> 0:13:30.040 like these just great little rumples. I mean, you could 0:13:30.080 --> 0:13:33.920 pick like five fairways from Saint Andrews and and use 0:13:33.960 --> 0:13:37.959 that another one the joined fairway what should be a 0:13:38.040 --> 0:13:41.440 joined fairway of the second and seventeenth hole at North Barrick. 0:13:41.960 --> 0:13:45.600 There's just a lot of irregularity. I think, like the 0:13:45.679 --> 0:13:49.520 thing that that to me comes out when you think 0:13:49.520 --> 0:13:54.960 about this is that you have like irregular movement, choppiness, 0:13:56.559 --> 0:13:59.760 you know, and a lot of times the contours they 0:13:59.760 --> 0:14:04.640 aren't massive contours, there are about ten feet or smaller. 0:14:04.960 --> 0:14:07.920 Is what really like resonates with me. I like the 0:14:08.040 --> 0:14:13.559 little stuff, kind of the wavy contours is what really 0:14:13.559 --> 0:14:13.920 gets me. 0:14:14.040 --> 0:14:14.960 The bigger stuff. 0:14:15.320 --> 0:14:17.920 And I think this could be like a modern agronomy 0:14:18.360 --> 0:14:21.200 thing like when you get bigger movement, you're either on 0:14:21.320 --> 0:14:25.600 top or you're down right, and that's that could be 0:14:25.720 --> 0:14:28.200 just where the cut of fairways are. You don't end 0:14:28.280 --> 0:14:31.280 up on down slopes. So when you get this smaller stuff, 0:14:31.760 --> 0:14:35.240 like the the four to five foot stuff, like if 0:14:35.240 --> 0:14:38.760 you're thinking about the sixteenth at St Andrew's, when it's 0:14:38.800 --> 0:14:41.600 not cut super low right, you can end up with 0:14:41.720 --> 0:14:45.480 lots of like side hill, downhill different lies that that 0:14:45.640 --> 0:14:49.680 kind of hang. And you know, that's what I love 0:14:49.720 --> 0:14:52.120 to see. Did you have thoughts on this? 0:14:52.680 --> 0:14:55.360 I a few came to mind. You know, for one thing, 0:14:55.520 --> 0:14:59.120 I think that a lot of links holes would be 0:14:59.680 --> 0:15:03.200 can of for this question. You know, the thirteenth hole 0:15:03.280 --> 0:15:05.960 at Prestwick. This is not a hole that I've played myself. 0:15:06.040 --> 0:15:11.200 I've just looked at it. Wonderful pure linxy undulation on 0:15:11.320 --> 0:15:15.400 the small scale that you're talking about. That's just a 0:15:15.440 --> 0:15:20.920 beautiful type of fairway with a wonderful sense of randomness 0:15:20.960 --> 0:15:24.960 and complexity. You just can't can't beat it for golf. 0:15:25.600 --> 0:15:29.360 But a couple more dramatic examples that did come to 0:15:29.400 --> 0:15:34.600 mind for me were one the eighth fairway at Prairie Dunes. 0:15:35.320 --> 0:15:38.880 The eighth Fairway of Prairie Dunes has these huge waves 0:15:39.360 --> 0:15:42.840 in it. So that's an example of the kind of 0:15:42.960 --> 0:15:46.680 larger scale contours that you know, a fairway can incorporate 0:15:46.720 --> 0:15:50.560 to great effect. And these these I don't know if 0:15:50.600 --> 0:15:52.640 you even want to call them contours. I mean, they're 0:15:52.440 --> 0:15:56.080 they're they're so big, but they have a strategic effect 0:15:56.160 --> 0:15:58.520 on the whole because they they can either open up 0:15:58.560 --> 0:16:01.200 site lines or obscure site line And depending on your 0:16:01.200 --> 0:16:04.120 position and the and how well you strike your drive, 0:16:04.560 --> 0:16:08.680 you can either overcome them or really be hindered by them. 0:16:09.000 --> 0:16:11.560 Then the next hole at Prairie Dunes, the ninth hole, 0:16:12.040 --> 0:16:15.920 is a wonderful example of how smaller scale waves in 0:16:16.000 --> 0:16:19.720 the land can really work. And you know, there's one 0:16:19.760 --> 0:16:23.160 side of the fairway on that hole that has bigger 0:16:23.400 --> 0:16:28.200 ripples than the other, and that makes the slightly flatter 0:16:28.240 --> 0:16:32.320 side of the fairway a bit more preferable because you're 0:16:32.360 --> 0:16:35.040 more likely to have a level lie and so. 0:16:35.040 --> 0:16:39.720 The strand ale ale get over the left, you get 0:16:39.760 --> 0:16:42.200 a way better angle. The right side shortens the hole. 0:16:42.560 --> 0:16:45.560 But especially with that wind that usually is coming right 0:16:45.600 --> 0:16:49.200 to left there too, it is like super advantageous to 0:16:49.240 --> 0:16:51.600 get over left, but it's super hard. There's a big 0:16:51.640 --> 0:16:54.920 blowout bunker on the left, and then obviously you're always 0:16:54.960 --> 0:16:58.000 dealing with the gunch there and it's scary. It's really 0:16:58.040 --> 0:16:59.400 scary to hit the ball left there. 0:16:59.480 --> 0:16:59.800 There's out. 0:17:01.640 --> 0:17:04.960 But yeah, that is I was thinking about eight to 0:17:05.080 --> 0:17:08.800 nine at Prairie Dunes. Those are two amazing fairways, and 0:17:08.840 --> 0:17:11.679 I think what you pointed out, like the difference the 0:17:11.720 --> 0:17:14.480 big scale and the small scale right, it shows how 0:17:14.520 --> 0:17:16.359 each can be super effective. 0:17:17.040 --> 0:17:20.440 Yeah, yeah, two of my very favorite holes in golf, 0:17:20.600 --> 0:17:23.680 and a big reason for it is because the fairways 0:17:23.680 --> 0:17:27.640 were routed over such interesting natural contours. You know, that's 0:17:27.640 --> 0:17:30.960 a Perry Maxwell. Those are two Perry Maxwell golf holes, right, 0:17:31.440 --> 0:17:34.520 And I think Perry Maxwell was really good at letting 0:17:35.400 --> 0:17:39.080 natural land movement stay there in the middle of a 0:17:39.119 --> 0:17:41.879 fairway at Old Town Club, which I just wrote a 0:17:41.880 --> 0:17:45.439 profile for for Club TFE. One of the great things 0:17:45.440 --> 0:17:48.000 that he does Maxwell does and the routing of that 0:17:48.080 --> 0:17:52.640 course is just goes straight over the most interesting topography 0:17:52.640 --> 0:17:54.800 on the golf course, and he has the guts to 0:17:54.880 --> 0:17:58.360 put fairways on pretty severe slopes and make those part 0:17:58.400 --> 0:18:00.600 of the golf hole. I think that there's one thing 0:18:01.240 --> 0:18:05.120 that really I can identify that I don't like as 0:18:05.200 --> 0:18:08.680 much about the architecture that came out in the eighties 0:18:08.800 --> 0:18:14.439 and nineties and early two thousands. It's that fairways are flatter, 0:18:14.840 --> 0:18:19.119 are graded, or are not put over the most interesting 0:18:19.160 --> 0:18:22.760 contours on the property. In fact, sometimes the most interesting 0:18:22.800 --> 0:18:26.000 topography is going to be off the fairway, and that 0:18:26.119 --> 0:18:29.640 makes your lie in the fairway more consistently quote unquote 0:18:29.640 --> 0:18:32.320 fair more driving range. Like if you hit it in 0:18:32.320 --> 0:18:35.680 the fairway, then you're going to have a pretty easy lie. 0:18:36.359 --> 0:18:38.920 But it also just makes the golf a lot less 0:18:39.000 --> 0:18:42.200 dynamic to me. And so if there's one thing I 0:18:42.240 --> 0:18:45.720 can identify that I love about Links design and Golden 0:18:45.760 --> 0:18:50.200 Age design, it's that, you know, willingness to go straight 0:18:50.240 --> 0:18:51.440 over really cool. 0:18:51.200 --> 0:18:55.760 Topography, unable unable to do anything else. 0:18:56.119 --> 0:18:58.439 Yeah, exactly, Yeah, they didn't have any other option. They 0:18:58.440 --> 0:19:00.960 couldn't move the land. You know, Essex County Club. We 0:19:01.000 --> 0:19:04.000 just did a whole of the day on social media 0:19:04.160 --> 0:19:06.720 the eighth of the of the eighth hole at Essex 0:19:06.760 --> 0:19:09.960 County Club and that I mean, it's just it's again 0:19:10.119 --> 0:19:13.000 huge contours, not little contours, but there's a huge high 0:19:13.040 --> 0:19:15.440 section of that fairway, a big low section of the fairway, 0:19:15.800 --> 0:19:18.760 and all you're thinking is just I can't believe Donald 0:19:18.840 --> 0:19:21.600 Ross put a fairway over this stuff, Like it's crazy. 0:19:21.760 --> 0:19:24.760 And on that hole, you're dying, dying to get it 0:19:24.840 --> 0:19:28.399 down on the low section. But to do that you 0:19:28.560 --> 0:19:31.280 have to hit from a blind te like kind of 0:19:31.280 --> 0:19:35.199 a draw and you're flirting without a bound and you 0:19:35.240 --> 0:19:38.000 pick up twenty extra yards if you can get it 0:19:38.040 --> 0:19:40.600 down into the low section, and if not, you end 0:19:40.680 --> 0:19:43.159 up out right. You have a worse angle into the green. 0:19:43.440 --> 0:19:46.200 The green, the angle the green sits on kind of 0:19:46.240 --> 0:19:48.800 like makes it a little bit more shallow. You might 0:19:48.920 --> 0:19:50.800 if the pins on the left, then you're bringing in 0:19:50.880 --> 0:19:53.080 out of bounds and a bunker into play on the 0:19:53.119 --> 0:19:56.719 second shot. It's a brilliant, brilliant hole. Another great, big, 0:19:57.000 --> 0:20:02.439 big fairway and a couple a couple big fairways that people, 0:20:02.680 --> 0:20:05.560 probably a lot of people listening have played, would be 0:20:05.880 --> 0:20:10.080 the thirteenth of Pacific Dunes with the hogs back down 0:20:10.160 --> 0:20:12.919 the middle. If you're able to challenge the ocean, you 0:20:12.960 --> 0:20:15.399 get a huge benefit. You don't have to take on 0:20:15.480 --> 0:20:17.960 the ocean on the second shot. If you miss the 0:20:18.000 --> 0:20:20.240 ball's gonna shoot it. If you miss it into the 0:20:20.320 --> 0:20:23.240 right side of the fairway, ball's gonna shoot right. Then 0:20:23.280 --> 0:20:26.119 that that ocean on your second shot into that narrow 0:20:26.119 --> 0:20:29.159 green is right in your periphery. Another great one is 0:20:29.200 --> 0:20:32.440 the fourth Abandoned Trails. You know you are. You've got 0:20:32.440 --> 0:20:35.760 that kind of diagonal hogs back. It's a delightful hole, 0:20:35.960 --> 0:20:38.360 and you kind of need to figure out what how 0:20:38.520 --> 0:20:41.720 far can I push it and carry that hogs back 0:20:41.800 --> 0:20:44.919 get the benefit of rolling over. But if you if 0:20:44.960 --> 0:20:47.639 you play too safe left, you're gonna run into trouble. 0:20:47.680 --> 0:20:49.840 If you play too far, too aggressively on the right, 0:20:49.880 --> 0:20:52.360 you're either gonna be blind or you could find one 0:20:52.359 --> 0:20:55.679 of those bunkers. That is a brilliant, brilliant fairway. I mean, 0:20:55.720 --> 0:20:59.480 there's so many great fairways. It's a it's honestly, it 0:20:59.520 --> 0:21:02.160 would be a great little post is to just kind 0:21:02.200 --> 0:21:06.520 of go through some of our favorite favorite fairway features. 0:21:07.000 --> 0:21:09.440 Yeah, I love thinking about this question, so so thank 0:21:09.480 --> 0:21:14.240 you Rob Keys for an excellent topic there. All right, Uh, 0:21:14.480 --> 0:21:17.960 let's do a little bit of discussion of teas. I 0:21:17.960 --> 0:21:21.960 think this is a pretty interesting subject that maybe doesn't 0:21:21.960 --> 0:21:24.680 get discussed very often. I don't think we've gone we've 0:21:24.720 --> 0:21:29.800 gone in depth on it recently. So Suzanne Woodrow asks 0:21:30.000 --> 0:21:34.440 rectangle teas or free form question mark and Alex DeLange asks, 0:21:34.720 --> 0:21:37.919 in your opinion, what makes a great tea box. So 0:21:37.960 --> 0:21:40.879 we can kind of put these questions together and just 0:21:40.960 --> 0:21:43.800 generally discuss tea design. 0:21:44.080 --> 0:21:45.960 This is why everybody wants to hear. 0:21:46.840 --> 0:21:48.720 This is This is why it's the third question. This 0:21:48.840 --> 0:21:51.680 is not the leadoff question where we're getting We're getting 0:21:51.720 --> 0:21:53.720 in the weeds here, but I think this is an 0:21:53.800 --> 0:21:56.920 underrated subject. Let me frame it this way. We think 0:21:56.960 --> 0:22:00.640 a lot about how greens are tied into their surroundings. Right, 0:22:00.720 --> 0:22:06.040 We're really insistent that greens need to be gracefully designed 0:22:06.160 --> 0:22:09.520 in relation to their surroundings. Right, we really focus on that. 0:22:10.160 --> 0:22:12.560 I don't think we focus on that nearly as much 0:22:12.560 --> 0:22:16.120 with teas. We're kind of fine with tea's just being 0:22:16.160 --> 0:22:19.600 these lame, little built up things that don't really have 0:22:19.720 --> 0:22:22.720 any design to them. So I wonder if this is 0:22:22.760 --> 0:22:25.480 something that's important to you, Andy, or whether this is 0:22:25.520 --> 0:22:30.160 something that's okay to kind of disregard when you're designing 0:22:30.200 --> 0:22:32.879 a golf course, if it's just not that important, not 0:22:32.920 --> 0:22:35.760 as important as a green, not as important as fair 0:22:35.800 --> 0:22:37.400 ways or hazards. 0:22:38.080 --> 0:22:39.600 I think teas are super important. 0:22:40.400 --> 0:22:44.840 As for rectangle or free farm, I think it's super 0:22:44.920 --> 0:22:49.439 syite dependent. And that's kind of a non answer there, definitely. 0:22:49.520 --> 0:22:52.000 I mean, yeah, a parkland course that has kind of 0:22:52.080 --> 0:22:55.760 simple land, I think that rectangle is often the way 0:22:55.800 --> 0:22:58.560 to go because freeform teas on that kind of piece 0:22:58.560 --> 0:23:04.199 of land, relatively flat, normal parkland land, they look a 0:23:04.200 --> 0:23:05.720 little dinky, don't they free form? 0:23:05.920 --> 0:23:09.680 Well, it depends too how you're tying them into the greens. 0:23:09.800 --> 0:23:11.040 How far away are they? 0:23:11.080 --> 0:23:13.360