Schuylkill CC-Orwigsburg, PA (Ross, 1947)

[Doug Braunsdorf]

I had the great opportunity to play Schuylkill CC (Ross, 1947) this past Tuesday, with GCA'ers Dave Maberry, Kyle Harris, and course superintendent Jim Rattigan.  

In context, I had played Lu Lu this past Friday, at the courtesy of Steve Shaffer.  Thank you, all.  That was very nice of you to have me.  

Therefore, in thinking about both courses in hindsight, it seemed rather interesting to be able to play what I understand was the first Ross course in Pennsylvania and then possibly the last course in Pennsylvania-bookends to his career, if you will.  

To first set some parameters for discussion here, Lu Lu is gently hilly, just north of Philadelphia.  Schuylkill is on slightly hillier land about 30 min. north of Reading, in what I understand was 'Coal Country' at one time.  So, the land the two courses sit on is slightly dissimilar.

Schuylkill, from what I understand, started as 9 holes, about 1922, construction of record, Mr. Frank James.  Speculation exists that the original 9 was Park or Ross.  Kyle will fill in some of the historical information.  

Ross' contribution around 1945 (the club has the plans prominently displayed in the clubhouse) was to bring the course up to 18 holes.  JB McGovern is listed prominently on the plans/'field book' with green profiles and detailed design information from Donald J. Ross Associates.  

Kyle will be contributing photos and maps to this discussion.  Thank you, Kyle.  

First, in playing Lu Lu, I noted the preponderance of angular features.  The thing which jumped out at me were the square-shaped greens.  In early aerials, posted in Lu Lu's clubhouse, most all of the greens were square.  
In addition, many of the bunkers had a 'square' appearance to them.  These were restored to original appearances.  

In contrast, the first thing that jumped out at me in playing Schuylkill was a little more 'roundness' to green and bunker designs.  The plans, as drawn, indicate for softer features, and I wondered if this is Ross evolving some over his career.  

Schuylkill featured many 'chipping areas' around greens, making for a wonderful variety of approach shots.  In the pictures, you will see these, which are still being further developed.  

One of the holes I will discuss at present is the fourth hole.  

Par 3, about 190 yards, slightly uphill.  
Standing on the tee, it didn't have that 'angular' Ross feel to it I was accustomed to. The bunkering scheme was a bit more extensive, creating the feeling that the green was surrounded in sand.  
Bunkers were located close to the green surface.  

The green is approximately 5-7 feet above the level of the tee.  

What is not evident to the player from the tee is the slope in the green.  Add into this the average player will have a long iron in, and it makes for a testing golf hole.  To keep members happy, Jim wisely cuts this green slightly higher, keeping speeds down.  The downside to this green is the fact that there are onyl a few pinnable locations on the surface.  

Below is a picture of #4.  As always, the camera flattens out the elevation considerably.  

[Kyle Harris]

With the recent discussion of JB McGovern and Aronimink, I feel this course and any discussion about it is extremely relevant, especially considering it is in the same area.

Like Doug, I was able to play Schuylkill and Lulu within a week of each other at the beginning of May (with many thanks to Steve Sayers for a great day, and a Yuengling draft  ).

In furthering playing the course, and with the first wave of Ron Prichard renovation/restoration completed I am beginning to understand the subtle, but important differences between the original nine holes and the new nine.

The green pads that still exist from the original nine holes (1, 5, 6, 14, 16, 17, 18 both the 7th and 15th greens were moved to alter distances) are more abrupt and severely contoured than the 1945 Ross/McGovern holes. Also, there is some discord between the greenside bunkering and green pad on the original nine while the Ross/McGovern holes follow a "Green Complex" approach, where the bunkering is more seamlessly integrated with green features.

The bunkering on the original nine holes seems to force the player to carry the bunker to get a favorable bounce onto the green, where the bunkering around the greens on the Ross/McG holes place a premium on approaching the green from the correct side. This places a premium on tee shots and playing from the incorrect side of the fairway places an extremely exacting shot (especially in distance control as just carrying the bunker will often kick the ball over the back of the green, or to a less optimum spot, especially on 2, 3, 10 and 11).

It is an interesting contrast of two different approach to strategy and a delight to play.

The par fives are also of note, especially the Ross/McG contributions of 3 and 8 (the others, 14 and 17 are from the original nine holes). 8 is a good counter for the common Ross criticism of routing from high point to high point, as both the landing area off the tee and the green are at low spots. A well struck drive will leave a blind approach to the green and a lay up will leave a tricky downhill sloping shot to the green. The third green is tucked in a corner of the property between OB left and a large gaping bunker right. Going for the green in two requires a precise tee shot and exacting second where the preferred miss is the greenside bunker. Even then a tricky up and down may still yeild par or worse.

The late Ross style is evident though, and it seems that McGovern may have fallen into the company line (he took little liberties from the written plans) and may have also relied heavily on Frank James to integrate the two nines.

I know this course has been getting a lot of air-time lately, but as those who have played it know, it is a very important piece of a very heavily discussed puzzle regarding Donald Ross.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

The next hole I will show is #5.  

This green is one of the original greens.  However, Ross changed the location of tees, thereby influencing play of the hole.  

The old par 4 played slightly downhill, and on a line roughly directly behind the camera.  Ross moved the teebox approximately 100 yards or so to the left, creating a sharper dogleg.  

The play today is a draw from the tee and a fade into the green, as the green will funnel approaches to the rear-left corner.  

What is not evident from the photo is a slope in the fairway, crossing diagonally from near left to far right, roughly on the same line as the shadow from the reddish tree which prevents players from hugging the inside of the dogleg too much.  

What we had talked about Tuesday was this particualr feature, and how it could be used by a player, under the right conditions, to propel the ball forward onto the green surface, to front right hole locations.  

[Kyle Harris]

Here are some more pictures illustrating some of the key differences between the design schemes:

The rear of the 4th hole, as Doug mentioned, these pictures do not do the slope justice. Any softening of this greens contours would focus on this portion of the green... lowering the back half to make for a few more hole locations around the bunkers.


Here is the 5th green (foreground) from the right side, looking toward the 3rd green. I felt this was an interesting contrast between the two styles of green site on the course. The 5th Green was one of the original 1922 holes. Note the disconnected feeling the bunker has from the green pad. In the background, the fifth green is one of the Ross/McG holes. To the left of the green in the picture is a mound that has a bunker fronting the green. Notice how the mound and therefore the bunker is more a part of the green complex.


I kept this one smaller but you can see the difference in bunker presentation on the 15th hole. Here is a case where the green was moved forward to turn the hole into a Par 4. The green is part of the Ross/McG revision, as is the greenside bunker. The bunker in the foreground is from 1922 and served as a hazard about 130 yards from the original green and was the left half of a "Principal's Nose" that was to the right and before the aspect of the picture. There was roughly 25 yards of fairway between the bunker in the picture and the NLE Principal's Nose. Note the differences in bunker appearance and presentation, with the 1922 bunkering being a bit more "rugged" in appearance.


Finally, the wonderful 140 yard Par 3 16th, from the original 1922 routing. Jim is slowing working the green to be more integrated with the bunkers on the left and the mounding to rear. Front hole locations can be accessed by hitting the back of the green and allowing the shot to spin back to the front. The bunkering is an interesting contrast to the rest of the course, and is one of the reasons Mike Cirba believes the original nine MIGHT have been Ross as well. Interestingly, Willie Park had designed a similar hole at Penn State (sadly it is part of the course that is NLE). However, that hole was downhill and was more a mimick of the "Short" hole style.

[mtp]

Which course do you prefer after having plyed each back to back essentially?

[Kyle Harris]

Well, it's one course and it's hard to judge either but I prefer the tee to green shots on the newer nine holes and the putting on the 1922 greens.

[mtp]

What about overall v. Lu Lu ?

[Kyle Harris]

Ah, my fault.

Right now, going to have to go with Lulu. It is the most consistent of the two. Also probably a bit more difficult, though I'd take Schuylkill's Par 3s over Lulu's.

However, with the currently implemented changes are a step in the right direction and with some continued tree removal and expanded greens, I believe Schuylkill may present a more complete challenge than Lulu.

In comparison, I feel that Lulu's quirkiness may work against it against Schuylkill.

A hole by hole analysis:
1: Schuylkill
2: Lulu
3: Schuylkill
4: Push
5: Lulu
6: Schuylkill (An excellent par 3)
7: Push
8: Lulu
9: Schuylkill (Awesome green)
10: Schuylkill (Best hole on the course)
11: Lulu (Though Schuylkill's is a great par 3... 11 is one of the best at Lulu).
12: Lulu
13: Schuylkill (Excellent Ross Par 4, severe green)
14: Push (A neat par five green at SCC)
15: Lulu (Especially with new green)
16: Tough, I'll say Push, but Lulu's 16th is one of my faves
17: Schuylkill (My favorite par 5 on any of the two)
18: Schuylkill (Wonderful punchbowl green complex)


So by that... SCC is 2 up.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Which course do you prefer after having plyed each back to back essentially?

MTP,

  This is a little difficult to answer, because as I stated in my introduction, they are completely different courses--night and day, designed/built at two ends of an architect's career.   I'm not 100% certain that a match play can easily be made, but I will try.  

  However, I will first give my impressions of the architecture.  

I concur with Kyle that currently, Lu Lu is more consistent across the board, as far as the appearance of the various architectural features.  This may be due to the fact that Schuylkill's work is still in progress, and, as several have correctly stated in the past, there were two distinct feels to each of the nine holes.  When Schuylkill's work is finished, I feel that it will provide a slightly different test.  By this, I mean to say that I felt the player needs to work the ball a little more at Schuylkill, and be able to contend with the uneven lies a bit more than at Lu Lu.  See below.  

  This is not to say Lu Lu is flat, or a walk in the park.  It's not.  

I like the green complexes at both courses equally--they both present a distinct and memorable challenge to the player.  The work Jim Rattigan is doing in developing chipping areas really adds another dimension to the play around the greens, and the membership will benefit.  I understand it takes time to develop the grass from rough to fairway cut immediately surrounding the green.  
Lu Lu currently has great square greens, and bunkers well integrated into the green complexes.  SCC's green complexes that need improvement are being further refined as we speak.  (Well, maybe not at midnight, but you understand   )  

Lu Lu currently offers more in the way of strategic fairway bunkering-for example, holes 2,4,8,9,11,14,17,18.  
I don't recall as many fairway bunkers on Ross' plans for SCC, however, so this is more likely due to his design here.  

Schuylkill offers a different challenge, because of the way the holes are designed, on the drive, due to trees, doglegs, or the topography.  For example, Hole 3 is a hard cut, 5 is a hard draw, 7 can go either way (OB HARD left, though!), 10 is a draw.   These are just several examples.  

When I played Lu Lu, I felt that a slight fade would be the best overall tee shot all around.  A draw is helpful at #s 1,14, but they can really be played either way.  

I'll give my best shot at match play, which is coming out slightly different than Kyle's.  

1-Push (475 par 5 can be played as a 4 par for better players, and the green complex is more difficult at Lu Lu, but I like the 1st tee immediate to the Pro Shop at SCC)
2-Push
3-Push (430 yard par 4 with a great green, versus a shortish par 5 at SCC with a great green complex and a testing drive. )
4-SCC (190 yard par 3 with an incredibly difficult green)
5-Lu Lu (toughest hole on the course, great drive, second shot makes you think about carrying the crossbunker!)
6-Push (Lu Lu's is uphill, and looks incredible from the green, but SCC had a great green as well).
7-Push (both are strong holes; Lu Lu's is longer and more strategic on the drive, but SCC's green was more deceptive in relation to the right  to left canting fairway and OB hard left the entire way down.  Nowhere to hide!)
8-Push (Loved the grass crossbunker and 'Dell' or 'Punchbowl' green at Lu Lu, but SCC offers a gambling par 5 with a great green complex as well)
9-SCC (Lu Lu's 9th is very strategic and deceptive, great bunkering, but the edge goes to SCC as the uphill second shot to a two-tiered green is so, so difficult.  Very easy to miss the green entirely, or spin the approach back off the green.)

Schuylkill CC 1 up through nine holes!  

10-SCC (slightly more forgiving drive, and testing green that is easy to miss from off the fairway, although the reachable par 5 at Lu Lu is a great hole as well).
11-Lu Lu (great strategic bunkering and difficult green at Lu Lu)
12-Push (Lu Lu has a great par 3, but SCC has a testing par 4 with water in play and a green similar to the 3rd at Montclair 1st Nine).  
13-Push (long, tough par 4 with severe greens at each)
14-Push
15-Lu Lu
16-Push
17-Lu Lu (both are difficult par fives; Schuylkill is in the process of removing trees, and I would like to see the crossbunker at 30 yards short right enlarged slightly, although the green is INCREDIBLE, whereas Lu Lu has OB hard right the length of the hole, wonderful fairway bunkers that really make you think, and a green complex that is great.  With a little work at SCC, this goes to Push)
18-SCC (I like the 18th a Lu Lu, it is strategic, with OB hard right and bunkers left, but I enjoyed the setting of SCC's 18th slightly more-partially blind green, very deceptive, and grass mowed to fairway cut most of the way around the back.  Welcoming clubhouse angled just off to the right behind the green.  A wonderful way to finish in both cases.

Second nine- Lu Lu 1 up.  

Just like the President's Cup.  

  In closing, it is difficult to pick one course over the other.  Both are a lot of fun to play in their own rights, and I would be hard pressed to turn down an invitation to either.  It is interesting to see Ross' work near the beginning of his career  and near the end. Although I would hypothesize he may have been more directly involved at Lu Lu, it being early in his career, whereas in the mid-40's, his career as an architect was winding down, and I would not be surprised, knowing his business practices, that one of his associates took the majority role in redesigning SCC (in this case, McGovern).  

  I also think it would be interesting and time well spent as an educational exercise for others, that those more knowledgeable off Ross' career and design work, to share their thoughts on SCC as one of his projects.