Classic Course Epiphany--UMBRSF

[Mike_Cirba]

Interestingly, those "lowpriced landscaping operation" bunkers, as lacking as they may be, actually look better than some "restoration" efforts I've seen by big-name architects.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I'm curious, why was there an effort to alter the routing ?

Was that a design goal, or a goal of the club's ?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, Its obvious to me that the course had one design goal--make it look pretty. Unfortunate that they didn't realize that the course they had evoked the nature of Rancho Santa Fe to begin with. Personaly, I don't get the Eastern Parkland feeling while there that Tom Doak does. I think its a unique environment on its own, in fact when I was on my way down there talking to Geoff Childs, I told him that Rancho Santa Fe as a whole is about my favorite place in all of California, next to "the Peninsula." I like that California Rancho feeling, and its sad that it used to exist in Irvine, but is more or less been paved over for homes, tech centers and mini malls. Nice isn't it!

Forrest,
You'll be glad to know that in 1928, when Max Behr was constructing the course, it looks like in an aerial photo of the course from that time, a very unique and elaborate drainage system that was being installed on the front nine of the course--during its construction. Maybe thats one of the drains you are looking at? I don't recall any drainage being used other then surface drainage, at the time, and maybe this is where so many of your fellow modern architects have lost sight of building golf courses--by not building along the lines of "Permanent Golf Architecture." Its certainly a subject that many of them should study IF they want to be better golf architects.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

OK, Tommy.

You obviously ran out of pictures of interesting holes to show us.  Whose fault are these last gruesome ones--Maxie or (fill in the blank) Dye?

Rich, it gets worse.

At one point, the effort to accomodate a cart path and another ugly looking bridge, which is so out of place and severly disturbs the 14th. It goes along with my idea of how little creative thought is given to concrete. Is there a chance that somewhere along the line of the history of golf architecture that concrete will undergo a minimilism period? (More then likely not until EZ-Go or Club Car fully invents a small-sized and affordable hovercart.)

Pat, As someone that is experienced in overseeing remodel efforts for a golf or country club, what was this person responsible for this thinking? I know you wouldn't let it happen under your watch!

(The back tees are directly in back of where I took this photo, so this is the line of sight from the tee.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

Tom Doak's post left me with the impression that he was there for the purpose of evaluating the routing with the distinct possibility of altering it.

I always liked Rancho Santa Fe golf course, and any thought of redesigning it to the extent that you rerouted it, would seem radical to me.

Hence, I asked the question.

I also thought that Rancho Santa Fe was a layed back community with a layed back golf course and atmosphere.
What changed since I was last there ?

[Coral_Ridge]

Just curious, was this golf course once the host venue for the Bing Crosby tournament in it's early days?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Coral Ridge, aka ?,

YES

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mr. Ridge,
Yes.

Pat,
My the misunderstanding is that I thought Tom had much more to do with nearby Rancho Santa Fe FARMS.

The community is much the same, althought he building of homes thorughout much more widespread since a ruling where you don't have to grow agriculture anymore, or maybe a lot less then before, around the area.

[A_Clay_Man]

CR- Don't tell anybody but, the original party, thrown by Bing, was started at Roosevelt Hospital in Augusta Ga. during the war.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tommy — You're simply not impressed with much of anything except a certain slim segment of golf courses. That's OK.

As to the photos you post, they look "good". I would not call the land movement "terrific", but I've never been there. I'll visit someday — at your recommendation.

To call this "among the best" — well, I'll make a wager you're wrong. This is simply another of your "love-fest" courses based on who was responsible and where it happens to be. It seems a very decent example of a solid course built on very good land that was embraced as an integral part of the design. Not much more from what I've seen so far.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

As for Doak's visit it would be easy for him not to be impressed in the 80's.  The place was very understated, undermaintained, and wide fairways and small greens made it look like an indifferent course.  It was subtle, the feel and routing was impressive the first time, the quality of the design would take several plays to appreciate.  I don't think they had much if any concrete cart paths in the mid 80's.  Tommy's pictures of cart paths are sad to see.
I think the area has undergone a major "keep up with the Bridges and Fairbanks Ranch."  Too bad the locals didn't appreciate what they had.  However the Rancho Santa Fe Inn, "gets it."  It still has a great aura.

[DMoriarty]

To call this "among the best" — well, I'll make a wager you're wrong. This is simply another of your "love-fest" courses based on who was responsible and where it happens to be. It seems a very decent example of a solid course built on very good land that was embraced as an integral part of the design. Not much more from what I've seen so far.

Forrest, you must be an amazing talent to be able to tell all that (especially regarding the ground movement) from a few photos taken long after the original was significantly altered. . .   Other than Tommy, I have heard from some others I trust that this was at one time a very special course with terrific subtlety-- perhaps the kind that might not show up in a few pictures.    When I see these people again, I will be sure to mention that in your opinion the course is and was rather humdrum.

Question:  What more are you looking for than "a solid course built on very good land that was embraced as an integral part of the design[?]"   I for one would be thrilled if I could find a few more such courses to play regularly!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest,

I was playing in a member guest at Fairbanks Ranch and ventured over to play Rancho Santa Fe before the work pictured was done.

As I played the first hole, I was somewhat under impressed, but that all changed on the second and subsequent holes.

I loved the golf course, the routing, the individual holes, the variety, the simplicity.  I also have a special place in my heart for it because as I was playing the third or fourth hole, a woman on horseback approached me as I was about to hit my approach shot.  She stopped, watched me hit what turned out to be a good shot, and then complimented me on the shot.  We chatted for a few minutes and went our seperate ways.  The course and the atmosphere was very layed back, very pleasant.

Tommy's pictures surprised me because the bunkers looked so different, so modern.  Obviously the cart paths are an eyesore.

This was a neat little gem, hidden from the limelight, but elegant in its presentation.

It's sad to hear, as Lynn Shackelford stated that they're trying to keep up with the Jones's, because they had something special that the Jones's didn't have.   The Jones's should have been trying to keep up to them, but sadly, those in charge didn't understand that and the true value of what they had.

[THuckaby2]

Hmmmm... I played this course in 2002.  Have these changes occurred since then?  I ask because the course I played then was pretty damn great... and I didn't care if Max Behr or Yogi Bear designed it!

So all this pining away for what it once was... well I'm sure that does have validity.  Just let's do get a sanity check in that it is still pretty freakin' great as it is today!  With greens and rolls and contours that great, I could give a rat's ass about cart paths and bridges.

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom,
I think the course was changed at the time you played it then.

Even with the lousy bunker work, the gross Dye-like collection areas in and around the greens, despite what Forrest might think from judging from pictures, its a great golf course, and I look forward to someday getting to see it again and again and again.

There are those that are going to get it and there are those that are not. Tom, you got it because even if you don't know Behr's little features what he built upon, but you can recognize great golf. RSF is like a school for those who really want to see some greatness shine, even if it has palm trees planted through some of that greatness! (More on that one later!)

I also suspect that the University of Max Behr at Lakeside (Toluca Lake campus) also exists in the same fashion. A great school, and it has a sister campus at University of Max Behr at Oakmont. (Glendale campus) Huck, something tells me you have played these too!

BTW, Happy Birthday Forrest! (a belated one)

[THuckaby2]

I also suspect that the University of Max Behr at Lakeside (Toluca Lake campus) also exists in the same fashion. A great school, and it has a sister campus at University of Max Behr at Oakmont. (Glendale campus) Huck, something tells me you have played these too!

Indeed yes, oh wise one... in fact TOO many times at each.  A high school friend was a member at Lakeside - so I got to play that MANY, MANY times, and we played Glendale's Oakmont several times in high school matches.  Yes, I was blissfully unaware of the architectural lineage of either until recent years.  Yes, I did very much enjoy both... although for the high-schooler I was when playing these, they were HARD!  That was my main impression of each... fun but really tough... and sadly I have not returned to either since those halcyon late 70s/early 80s days...  

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Played RSF today and got a better explanation about the bunker part of the renovation.  I have followed the variousclub issues fairly closely over the years--most issues are published in the local newspaper since the RSF Association actually owns the golf club.  The bunker work was not planned per say--the bunkers were supposed to be dug out and resanded while the course was closed for regrassing.  The bunker work was done for an additional $300,000 by the construction firm that re-engineered the ponds and cart pathes.  No architect was involved--OUCH!  This may explain why the bunkers are so generic looking.  The next question--What construction company did the work and who have they worked for?  Someone probably can figure out who they have worked for by the bunker styling.                                   Tommy, if I had today's final three holes Sat., then Sat. would have been a very serious round.  

[Gib_Papazian]

Just out of curiosity, is Harbottle the author of the masterplan/proposed remodel?

Personally, I liked the course okay, although it was obvious that some of the remodeling work did not blend well into the surrounds.

The fairway contours are quite interesting, given the topography, but I did not feel like it was some kind of masterpiece.

I thought it was better than Del Mar CC - or courses of that ilk-  but nowhere near as strategic as Barona.

The putting surface contours do not come close to Neal's Maderas out in Poway either.

Now that I think about it, I even prefer Crosby National to  Rancho Santa Fe.

Huckster:

Lakeside? Yeeech!  The remodeling work is atrocious, the rough lines absurd and the putting surfaces have shrunk down to idiotic little dots, surrounded by tired looking bunkers.

Max Behr would vomit if he saw what his creation had degenerated to. The head professional was quite proud that the winning score for their hotshot amateur tournament was never better than 1 or 2 under.

Few men are blessed with both machisimo and taste. This was no exception.  

It looked and played like an intentionally frustrating obstacle course, set up to hide the best contours and landforms with arbitary fairways and greens mowed into tiny circles.

The worst part was looking at old photos of what was there before . . . . .    

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The main problem is that there is no architect involved with a master plan.  At the current time, Barona is a better course than RSF, maybe by quite a lot.  Potentially, RSF is absolutely awesome.  There are a few vintage photos showing how great it once had been.  I also think this is a course that needs a few plays to rise in ones personal ratings.  Since I also play the other newer clubs fairly often, my opinion is that they do a better job of first time impressions--especially the Crosby--there are several really good holes.  I'm starting to find Curley/Schmitt a little borderline Fazio repetitive with the bunkers being identical to SCPGA, Oak Quarry, and Goose Creek.  RSF has the best shot values for the good player after Riv, LACC, and PGA West for SoCal.  I love Barona, but it is a par 68 and I never need more than a PW into every par 4 other than 18.  

[Gib_Papazian]

By contrast, I am starting to really warm up to Curley/Schmidt on the strength not only of Crosby National, but their terrific course in Scottsdale with Nick Faldo. (Foxfire)

[Tommy_Naccarato]

My Armenian Mentor,
Take a little trip with me and see the stuff you didn't see the first time that's there, just disguised by needless tree plantings and mow lines.  This course is just too subtle to really put a number on it from just one trip. In fact, its going to take a few more for me to really start to digest all thats going on there, its really that good. Think Rustic Canyon 75 years from now and all of the changes it will be going through in that time. You'll get my point.

Clearly this is a golf course that is in need of TLC with someone that knows Max Behr and understands what they are looking at, and yes, it isn't better then Barona right now, but it could be if in the right hands.

Robert,
From this website, I have played and seen three types of golfers:

--Golfers that don't think they are very good, but are quite the opposite.
--Golfers that think they are very good, have no problem admitting it, yet are clearly not nearly as good as they think they are.
--Golfers that don't talk the talk, but are clearly in a class that seperates them from the other two types mentioned, because their either devouted to the Sport to the point that it defines their character or they are just really that talented.

I don't even have to mention what class you fit in.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

And by the way, Robert has hit it spot on about Schmidt & Curley.

Too Much/Too Little /Too Soon!

[TEPaul]

Interesting thread. Hard to know what to say about the course now compared to the way it used to be. The posts of Lynn Shackelford about it maybe 15 or more years ago lend some feeling, though, and the descriptions by Robert Mercer Durantz of the way it once was strategically do too. Also Pat when he played it apparently quite some time ago seems to evoke a real laid back aura about the place and course that it may not have the look or feel of any longer.

I know it might be hard to do on here but is there any way to get some photos up of the course from the late 1920s or 1930s on here when it was Behr untouched?

Max Behr on architecture, at least in his philosophy, makes so much sense to me but I've never seen anything he did in person and frankly I've never seen more than a photographed hole or two of his from the old days.

It's quite obvious from what Behr wrote about golf architecture and various principles of it that there were a few sort of necessary fundamentals to his architectural theory. Width of play was definitely one of them. It was the fundamental that all his other ideas about features, the potential strategies of the various levels etc were based on. An architecturally defined "middle" seemed to be anathema to Behr as it was to many of those architects and architectural thinkers of that early era. (To get a feel for that check out the little quote at the bottom of Lynn Shackelford's posts by Bernard Darwin!).

Max Behr’s ideas on what he referred to as “Permanent Architecture” is fascinating to me; it basically called for a few necessities or requirements in golf architecture;

1. A basic “natural” look or at least the illusion of it architecturally. That involved a few fundamental applications by the architect---tying in his architectural “lines” with those “lines” of the natural site. It also required minimizing visual apparentness as much as could be done of what he called those ’necessary features of golf“---eg tees, fairways, greens and to some degree on some sites--sand that was not indigenous.  To him this was only a matter of degree as he realized it could never be done totally---a recognized virtual impossibility to him without reverting back to what he referred to as “wild golf” which he understood (in the 1920s) as it had been around the times of golf’s ultra natural (pre-architecture) beginnings hundreds of years ago in Scotland. The reason Behr believed in “naturalism” in golf and golf architecture was simple---he just thought the golfer (man) would be more accepting of it and less critical of it than he would of the look of something distinctly artificial (man-made). His implications of why exactly that should be so are truly fascinating!

2. That architecturally imitating the natural formations of Nature---the use of the convex shape compared to the concave shape in various arrangements, particularly in immediate juxtaposition  made for more durable and therefore more permanent architecture. This idea is really not that much more than a simple course in proper ground flow drainage. His point was that running water can be and is very destructive so don’t let it happen in various places on the golf course that need particular protection from it.

TommyN and Forrest had a mini discussion on this a few posts back. This would be an interesting discussion to have on this thread. Obviously Behr didn’t invent proper drainage in golf architecture but he may’ve been trying to determine better ways of improving it! Clearly those older guys in that era had to work well with their golf architecture surfaces to avoid destructive drainage problems. They may’ve had to be more diligent about that than today’s architects are simply because back then they just didn’t or couldn’t get the sophisticated drainage underground that today’s architects do and can. That simple fact may’ve forced them to understand better the ways and the reasons why Nature itself worked in this vein.

There does seem to be some occasional ironies here though with Behr and some of those contemporaries of his such as George Thomas and the courses he did in SoCal. Actually some supreme ironies. They all seemed to build courses and do architecture that imitated nature this way----they probably all influenced each other this way. GeoffShac may be beginning to feel and find some evidence that Behr may've had a bigger influence on MacKenzie and Bob Jones in some ways than we've realized.

But we can’t escape the fact that some of Thomas’s holes in SoCal were completely destroyed by the force of raging water and we can’t escape the fact that if Behr really did produce a course at Rancho Santa Fe that was as natural as he thought it should be to produce permanency in architecture because man (the golfer) would be less critical of it and less inclined to change it----that that did not work very well because looking at these recent photos and reading this thread that course has probably been changed massively both actually and in look and feel from the way Behr intended it should be!

Is it possible and logical to say that Behr and his “naturalist” architecture contemporaries of that era really were onto something in theory and philosophically as it might apply to architecture's principles---that they really did understand the principles of naturalism in architecture but what they may not have understood all that well was human nature?

[THuckaby2]

Gib:

I last played Lakeside in about 1984.  I bet I played it 50 times in the years from 1978-1984.  But none since.

So... give me a break, ok?  I was a kid, ranging in age from 15-21 in those years.  I played nothing but competitive golf... with absolutely zero appreciation for anything beyond how difficult and well-conditioned any course was.  Lakeside was both of those things to the highest order.  It was also fun, because it held deep bunkers and fast greens that we didn't get at our standard public fare like Balboa/Encino, Woodley and Hansen Dam.  I could have given a rat's ass about it's design, it's heritage, or if it was designed by Max Behr or Boo-Boo Bear.  And what it once was?  What the hell did that matter to me?

And I have not returned to the course since those impressions were formed.

So this break I am asking for, may I have it please?

 

I do wonder what I would think if I saw it today...because I too have read the descriptions of what once was... Wexler had me salivating.  So would it be ruined for me today, because I'd be pining way for what might have been?  Maybe.  Hopefully I would have a more trained eye, and see beyond just the difficulty and conditioning.  But I based what I said above on impressions made long ago... and I thought I made that clear.

I would love to see it again.  I bet I'd have fun playing it... but not as much as those great old days.  Ignorance really can be bliss.

TH

[Gib_Papazian]

Now now, I did intend to cast any doubt about the architectural sensibilities toward the aforementioned Evil Leprechaun.

However, in your new incarnation as a YaBB God (what is that, anyway?), GD rater and architectural savant, I promise you that you will be disgusted and appalled at the inexcusable degradation of the original architecture.