Kahkwa Architect`s plan 12_09

The Kahkwa Club
Master Plan for Golf Course Restoration and Improvements
Revised June 1, 2009
The Kahkwa Club
Master Plan for Golf Course Restoration and Improvements
Revised – May 19, 2009
Goals and Objectives Summary
Through discussions with committee members, site visits, examination of the available original Donald
Ross plans and period photographs, and a review of the 1998 Forse Design plans and improvements
for the golf course, we have identified the following goals and objectives to help guide the proposed
Master Plan work on the golf course.
Goal – Strengthen The Kahkwa Club’s place as the finest family club in the Erie, Pennsylvania
area by making the golf course enjoyable to play for golfers of all levels and all ages.
Objectives:
• Continue to increase the options and variation of length for teeing grounds on each hole
that was begun during the 1998 restoration. At that time, most holes got new forward tees
making the course more playable for many golfers (there are now 54 tee boxes on the
course).
• Continue to make the course more playable by removing a few bunkers that serve no real
strategic purpose and that are very close to the forward tees, and by softening the faces of
a few bunkers that are in play mainly for higher handicap golfers.
• Restore playability to the new greens at holes 17 and 18.
• Improve the club’s practice facilities to include expanded practice tees, better target
greens, and a better short game area.
Goal – Continue to strengthen The Kahkwa Club’s position as one of the leading golf courses in
the Northwest Pennsylvania area.
Objectives:
• Make maximum use of the Ross legacy by continuing to restore the strategy and look of
the original Ross design.
• Increase the length and difficulty of the golf course for lower handicap golfers by adding
several new back tees where possible, especially on the longer holes, in keeping with the
Ross philosophy.
• Reduce the usage of the back tees somewhat by making the difference between the black
and the blue tees more significant.
• Consider adding several new strategic bunkers to challenge longer hitters.
• Reestablish the tight relationship of the fairway bunkers and the fairway edge that is a
hallmark of Ross designs. Too many bunkers are currently “removed” from the fairway
edge by several yards of rough.
• Examine existing tree lines for each hole, and recommend adding or deleting trees to more
closely reflect the intent of the Ross design.
Discussion The first goal will likely have broad support with the membership. The Kahkwa Club is primarily a
great family club, with a strong physical plant that features a classic golf course by one of the game’s
great designers. The rolling topography and the heavily contoured greens are among Ross’ boldest
designs. Kahkwa addressed playability issues during the 1998 restoration with generally good
results. Anything that is done now to the golf course needs to keep playability firmly in mind and must
accommodate a relatively mature membership and while attracting new younger families and beginner
rounds of golf; that is spouse, elderly, and children rounds. Kahkwa is not a men-only club, nor is it a
golf-only club.
The second goal is perhaps subject to more difference of opinion on the desirability of maintaining
Kahkwa’s place among the leading golf courses in the region. Kahkwa has a rich history in the world
of private clubs and of tournament golf, including JoAnne Carner’s 1971 U.S. Women’s Open win,
and more recently hosting the 2004 USGA Women’s Amateur. But why should the club spend scarce
resources now to make a fine family facility longer and more difficult to play? The fact is that many
older clubs, especially in cities like Erie, are trying to attract new members from a decreasing pool of
potential new members. That makes the club environment very competitive. Many younger male
golfers, when assessing their club options, appear to consider course length and difficulty as important
parameters. Currently, Kahkwa’s difficulty is mainly around the fast, heavily contoured greens, where
modern mowing heights have exaggerated the bold Ross shaping, while the length on the card (6,524
yards at par 72) is short by modern standards. Although Kahkwa certainly plays longer and tougher
than the card indicates, most new competitive courses are substantially longer than Kahkwa, typically
measuring over 7,000 yards, and it would be to Kahkwa’s advantage to find some additional length
where possible.
Fortunately, the apparent contradiction of the two goals, keeping the course playable for family golfers
while making it a leading course for the best golfers, is not necessarily a contradiction, but is, in fact,
consistent with the original Ross design, and illustrates in part why his designs stand the test of time so
well. “Golf should be a pleasure, not a penance” was a favorite saying of his.
Modern golf course design addresses the length issue by providing many more teeing options than in
the old days. Kahkwa has already provided a good set of forward tees and now needs to add some
back tees where possible. Another aspect is fairway width. Ross was an advocate of generous fairway
widths and very little rough in order to keep play moving and make the game more fun for the higher
handicap player. An examination of the Ross original nine hole designs that remain (current holes 1018) reveal fairways that are at least 40 yards wide in the landing areas and that often expand up to 50
yards wide. Most of the fairways at Kahkwa today are only 30-35 yards wide. Where this really
shows up is near fairway bunkers. While the Ross drawings show bunkers that either appear to take a
bite out of the fairway or that actually are in the fairway, the current fairway bunkers are almost all
removed from the fairway by 5-10 yards of rough. The original idea was to have the errant ball find
the bunker instead of being stopped by the rough. We don’t recommend widening the fairways
throughout the course as that has implications on the cost of maintenance, but we should look for
places where small increases in fairway area can have large playability and visual impacts.
Another possible way to enhance playability for weaker golfers while adding challenge for low
handicappers is at the greens complexes. There is an opportunity at a few greens to add fairway height
run-offs around the greens. Such run-offs can give weaker golfers more options (chipping and putting)
rather than playing a difficult wedge shot out of heavy rough to a slick green. At the same time, low
handicappers, who have less trouble with the wedge out of the rough, will have to think a bit more
about how to play the shot off a tight fairway lie. A word of caution, however, is that modern mowing
heights and maintenance techniques on both the greens and the fairways can bring this course, with its
bold contours, to the edge of playability, and in some places beyond playability. I realize that the
membership really likes to keep the greens in the 11.5-12 foot range on the stimpmeter. That is
certainly far faster than any green speeds during Ross’ lifetime, and they make many of Ross’ best pin
locations unusable. It creates a dilemma that is in the Green Committee’s hands.
Finally, it is worth stating that Ross was an un-tiring modifier of courses, as were most of the golf
course architects of his day. He changed one of his masterpieces, Pinehurst #2, over a 40 year period
right up to his death. He would certainly not be afraid to add length and bunkers in response to
changes in equipment and the way the game is played. Nor should we be slaves to his original vision
for The Kahkwa Club. Golf courses are living breathing things, forever evolving.
Implementation of the 1998 Forse Design Plan – The Forse Design plan was implemented in part.
The plan called for greens to be expanded back to their original slightly more square shapes in order to
re-capture some of the best, most challenging pin placements. These “sucker” pins are meant to lure
the best players, looking for birdie opportunities, while higher handicappers should be playing more to
the green centers. It appears that only some of this work was done, and this is something that should
continue to be done as time and budget permit.
Also, several of the new bunkers that were proposed were evidently never built, or were not placed
precisely where the plan called for them to be. Similarly, several of the new tees proposed by the plan
were not implemented.
Hole-by-Hole Recommendations –
Hole #1 – This is a good example of the bunkers being too removed from the fairway line. The left
side bunker especially should be closer to the fairway by expanding the bunker slightly towards the
fairway and by bringing the fairway line over closer to the bunker, as this bunker has no impact on
longer hitters in any case. The right hand fairway bunker was not built as close to the centerline as the
Forse plan proposed it, and it was not given sufficient support mounding to make it visible from the
tee. It should be expanded towards the green and centerline, and given more support.
Hole #2 – The Forse plan called for three new fairway bunkers on this short slightly uphill hole, but
only the first right side fairway bunker was built. That bunker is of little consequence to the better
golfer and only tends to catch the short fade, leaving a very difficult approach. This driving area
should be substantially toughened by adding two bunkers on the left side of the fairway, one in the hill
about 275 yards from the tee and one about 250 yards from the tee. Two large trees on the left side of
the fairway should come out. We should consider lowering the right side of the green here to make the
upper shelf more playable.
Hole #3 – The back tee on this par 3 gets too much play for its size and should be enlarged and
lengthened as much as possible, about 12 yards, by lowering the existing tee without losing visibility
of the pond.
Hole #4 – The 4th tee shot currently belies the hole’s name, Gentle Bend, as it is more like a hard hook
around the existing trees. There is an opportunity here to move the tee well to the right, straighten the
tee shot somewhat, and add almost 70 yards to the golf hole. It is my understanding that the pump
station is to be relocated in any case to allow that new tee – that was called for but not implemented in
the Forse plan. That new tee will dramatically change the landing area for the hole and open up the
visibility from the tee. A strategic bunker on the left side, into the hillside just past the landing area
should be added. There may be an opportunity here to add closely mown green surrounds behind the
green, although the area may require some softening of the grade in order to give the ball a chance to
stop properly.
Hole #5 – There is an opportunity to build a new tee back and to the right, making the dog-leg a little
less severe and adding about 20 yards to the hole, but the committee does not recommend that addition
at this time. The plan indicates the tee with a dashed line and has not included the new tee in the added
length to the course. The bunker on the right side of the fairway is visually weak and is limited by the
existing trees there. At least three, and possibly more trees should be removed on the right side of this
bunker, and the bunker should be enlarged and given better support.
Hole #6 – The best place to add length on a Ross course is on the longer holes, as he was a big fan of
the long par 4. We can add about 20 yards to this tee by extending the tee back behind the 2nd green;
the area that used to be the 3rd tee. That is an important 20 yards as it will keep many golfers from
hitting over the hill cleanly and gaining additional roll. The front of the current back tee should be
lowered and softened for easier walking and visibility. The fairway bunkers here are not tight enough
to the centerline or the fairway lines, so the fairway cut should be taken closer to the bunkers. The left
side bunker near the green should be removed as it hampers mainly the high handicap golfers.
Hole #7 – This is a very strong par 4, which is a real Ross favorite. Although there has been some talk
of adding a back tee and making this a par 5, the committee’s consensus is that the hole should remain
a strong par 4. In fact we should toughen the hole in keeping with the original design, which had the
left side bunker short of the green about 40 yards much closer to the centerline and out from under the
large tree. This is the key bunker on the hole and should impact the second shot significantly. The
right side bunker should move away from its tree as well and closer to green with a steep face. Future
consideration should be given to widening the fairway to the left by 10-15 yards at the first landing
area, which would require the removal of the first row of pine trees.
Hole #8 – The 8th hole, currently a par 5, is, like the 7th, really a par 4.5. There is really no opportunity
to lengthen this hole, and the thinking is that at some point it should become a par 4 from the back tees,
lowering the course par to 71, certainly not something Ross would have objected to. For now the hole
will remain a par 5, but the fairway bunker on the left side just over the road will be expanded to about
275 yards from the tee as shown on the Forse plan. The right side of the landing area now presents no
real obstacle and the plan proposes adding a large bunker in that open area. The grass bunker on the
left side near the green should be softened to make it easier to maintain.
Hole #9 – This is a very good looking hole, but again the fairway lines and the bunkers are too far
apart. The second existing bunker on the right side of the landing area extends almost to the 1st
fairway and crosses a natural drainage swale, making it a drainage problem. That bunker should be
reduced in size, keeping only the part closest to the 9th hole. A third bunker should be built on the right
side just passed the landing area, into the slight hillside.
Hole #10 – This is another spot where adding about 22 yards to the back tee, extending it into the
existing putting green, would make a real difference in where the tee shot lands – into the hill instead
of on top of the hill. The putting green could co-exist with the tee in the short term, with a fringe
border, until the permanent putting green is built near the range in conjunction with the improvements
to the practice area. The right side fairway bunker was not built as close to the centerline of the hole as
Ross had it or as the Forse plan showed it. The Ross plan had it crossing the centerline by about five
yards. The bunker should be rebuilt in the Ross position and the fairway should be taken closer to the
left hand bunker, which has already been expanded. The bunker on the left side of the green should be
expanded to guard the front left pin position, and there is a good opportunity for a fairway cut chipping
area to the right of the green.
Hole #11 – This is a good par-3 that could be lengthened by about 15 yards with a new tee back to the
left, and lower than the existing tee. The first right side bunker is penal for weaker golfers and blocks
view of the other bunkers closer to the green; it should be removed.
Hole #12 – A great rolling par 5 that could perhaps be at a later date if equipment continues to demand
more length. A new tee could be built adding as much as 30 yards to the hole, but it would require
cutting a large number of trees so it is not part of this recommended plan.
Hole #13 – The original Ross plan made extensive show of an open ditch across the fairway about 35
yards in front of the green. While today that would penalize only weaker golfers, this may be an
opportunity to bring the small existing pond closer to the fairway and green. That excavation would
also provide some needed fill for work elsewhere on the course. The two front bunkers should be
extended to guard the forward pin positions more effectively.
Hole #14 – This is another strong rolling hole with a great second shot, but it could use a bit more
defense against longer hitters. There is no opportunity for lengthening at the tees, so the plan
recommends adding two more fairway bunkers, one on the left side beyond the landing area, at about
280 yards from the tee, and one on the right side in the slope just before the landing area, which would
greatly enhance the strategy from the tee. At least one tree will need to be removed and possibly some
some earth will need to be shaved off the right side of the rough to make that bunker visible. The green
area already has the more closely mown surrounds on the right side, per the Forse plan.
Hole #15 – There is an opportunity to lengthen this already long par-3 by as much as 38 yards, which
for most golfers would bring back the fairway wood club selection that Ross was trying for. The
bunker on the right side is controversial as it is difficult for weaker golfers, but it seems pretty integral
to the Ross design. The face of this bunker should be softened if possible without creating a drainage
issue. At the same time, the bunker to the left of the green should be extended a little closer to the
green.
Hole #16 – This short hole should offer more risk-reward on the tee shot. Many of the trees on the
right side of the landing area have been taken down, and we should consider adding a bunker in that
area if we can make it visible from the tee. Ross clearly envisioned a very serious bunker just at the
edge of the hill about 40 yards short of the green. This bunker should be deep enough to require a blast
shot out. The green front corners should be softened and expanded some for maintenance
considerations. At the same time, the first bunker off the tee is quite penal for the higher handicapper
and should be removed in favor of a grass bunker that keeps some of the visual aspects of the bunker.
Hole #17 – The restoration of the Ross bunker on the right side of the fairway is not strong enough
visually and seems to punish the wrong golfers. It is of no consequence to longer hitters, and the short
carry allows them to hit away from the left side bunker. The bunker face should be softened to allow
higher handicappers a chance to recover. The Ross plan calls for a cross bunker directly in front of the
green; by the 1998 survey this was two small bunkers on the left front and one on the right side of the
green. Forse showed a partial restoration of the Ross bunker, but this was not implemented. Given the
new left side fairway bunkers, we should restore at least a portion of the Ross bunker guarding the
right front of the green, so that golfers are encouraged to challenge the left side fairway bunker from
the tee. Shorter hitters will not be able to reach that left side fairway bunker and will want to avoid the
right side fairway bunker, so will tend to play up the left side and have an opening to the green. The
green itself was rebuilt in the Forse plan, but was not successful and should be rebuilt, probably as a
push-up green, keeping the chipping slope on the left but softening the false front enough to make the
make the green more pin-able and playable at the desired green speeds. It is recommended that we
consult with a soils and turf expert, such as Norm Hummel from Penn State, in the construction of the
17th and the 18th greens.
Hole #18 – There may be an opportunity here to add a new tee and about 30 yards, if the club’s entry
drive were slightly re-aligned in the future per the existing entry and parking reconfiguration plan. In
the meantime, the plan proposes to add challenge in the landing area. The first fairway bunker on the
left is too far removed from the fairway; bring the fairway over closer to the bunker. The newer left
side fairway bunker at the landing area should be extended to the centerline of the hole per the Forse
plan, and we should consider adding a new bunker on the right side about 275 yards from the back tees
to really tighten the fairway for longer hitters, removing the tree(s) as needed. Consider adding a
strategic bunker to the right front of the green if and when the green is rebuilt. This green was also
rebuilt during the Forse restoration, and again was not very successful. It should be re-built, probably
as a push-up green, with more pin-able area. Both the 17th and 18th greens would be subject to more
detailed survey, design, and construction drawings if the decision is made to proceed with the work.
Added Length – If all the added tees were implemented the yardage of the course would be an
additional 176 yards for a total of 6,700 from the back tees, keeping the par at 72 for the time being.
That would be a significantly stronger statement for many golfers looking at potential golf clubs to
join. Together with the added strategic bunkers and Kahkwa’s bold green complexes, the added length
would make a very challenging golf course.
Practice Facilities – The Kahkwa Club already has better than average practice facilities for an older
club. The short game practice area is potentially a real asset and should continue to be improved
agronomically as the maintenance budget will allow. The Forse plans included improvements to the
range that require the relocation and reconfiguration of the club’s parking areas, so that may be some
time in the future. In the meantime, there is an opportunity to build a good new putting green to the
right of the existing tees by relocating the drive into the tennis parking area. This would allow more
contained practice and would eliminate the double use of the proposed back tee on #10. Some priority
should be given as well to enhancing the target greens on the range, making it more visual for golfers.
Future Work – The next step in the process will be for the Committee to prioritize the work in terms
of timing and budget. Much, if not all, of the work can be accomplished in-house with the club’s
experienced crew. IMG Design will provide more detailed drawings of specific projects, particularly
the 17th and 18th greens, on an as needed basis, and will make site visits to inspect the work as
requested.