Cascades Renovation? did I miss

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,

    When I look at those two designs I get the feeling that Flynn grew from his Shinnecock experience.
   Or do you think it may be an economic issue ? The second design is more elaborate  and expensive. Possibly he felt they could handle the additional expense.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
We never got to talk much about it yesterday at Lehigh, but how much "redesign" did RT Jones do in 1961 and how much of that work will be restored to Flynn?

Mike,
To chime in on your question, everything is budget related to some extent.  Very often, the budget can and does have an impact on what the designer ends up designing.  
Mark

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

Flynn was doing these sorts of bunker/mound schemes well before Shinnecock Hills.  He did them at Atlantic City and proposed them at Denver CC around the same time he did the Cascades, later at Boca Raton and other places.  Of course his work at Shinnecock Hills still remains while it has been lost most everywhere else; a victim of NLE courses or maintenance budgets.  Even at Shinnecock the rugged wastelands became formalized over the years.  

As the song goes, money changes everything.  That's what Mark is saying in his chime in.  They may not have had a lot of money in 1935 to consider the project but the labor costs had to be so low during the Depression that they considered making work for the staff to keep them on.

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

R.T. Jones, Sr. may have moved the first green but definitely redid the bunkering.

Someone turfed over the stream in front of 5 green.

Someone removed the mound and pot bunker on the left of 7 and created a huge bunker yards away from the green.

Someone added a bunker on the right of 8 and behind and right of 9 green.

Someone added fairway bunkers and a greenside bunker on 10.

Someone changed the greenside bunker on 11, removed a mound and added the left bunker on the hillside.

Someone extended the bunker on the right of 12.

Someone expanded the right greenside bunker on 13.

RTJ did a terrible job in moving the green on 14.  It is a great green but not sympathetic to the Flynn greens.  He also compromised the angle on 15 making the long par 3 play from 50 yards to the right of the original tee without changing the green.  He did change the right greenside bunker to accept a shot from the right.  The tee shot is now through a chute of trees making working the ball on the 235 yard hole (formerly 250) nearly impossible.

Jones moved the 16th green beyond a stream and turned it into a pond.

Jones moved the 17th green closer to the stream and revised the bunkering.  The rear bunkers are particularly unattractive.
 

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Will much besides the bunkers be restored?  

I didn't care for some of the comments in the announcement particularly the one that basically stated that the game played today is too challenging to restore the original design.  Frankly, I disagree!  It implies the work RT Jones did was needed to update the course to modern standards and I doubt that to be true.  I assume you agree.
Mark

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
That proposed 14th is amazing...if I remember correctly that hole was on comparatively level land. Do you know why it was never implemented?

[TEPaul]

We don't know why that multi-bunker iteration on #14 was never implemented. No one does at this point. But to hazard a guess I suppose expense may've had something to do with it. It'll probably be the same reason this time around but I'll tell you one thing---if they'd agree to do that Flynn multi-bunker iteration on #14 and also take down all the pines to the left of #14 and #16 the view of those holes from the clubhouse with all those bunkers on #16, #14 and #13 would be a spectacular sight.

Mark:

Looks like some of the green shapes will be restored, and I'm very much hoping they will agree to go back to the original fairway widths. Their total fairway acreage now they say is about 21 which is small. Upper is not a big maintenance budget at all though and that needs to be considered.

What disturbs you about taking today's game into consideration? In my opinion, one should always look for ways to take all levels into account without doing anything to mess with the look and character and strategic intent and concept of any hole. As we all know sometimes that can be done very easily and sometimes it should never be attempted at all for obvious reasons.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I don't want to make a big deal about it but I just didn't really like what this quote implied particularly the end about today's game being a bit more challenging.  To me it implied the original design was not worthy of today's players.  Do you agree?  I would be surprised if the original design intent of Flynn on this course was not challenging enough for players today.  

"We are restoring the course with assumptions based on today's game. Many things the original design called for can't be implemented today - there's a road that runs through the course now - and today's game is a bit more challenging," said Brett Schoenfield, president of The Homestead.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I don't want to make a big deal about it but I just didn't really like what this quote implied particularly the end about today's game being a bit more challenging.  To me it implied the original design was not worthy of today's players.  Do you agree?  I would be surprised if the original design intent of Flynn on this course was not challenging enough for players today."

Mark:

I do understand what you're driving at. That quote says today's came is a bit more challenging. Frankly I think today's game would be quite a bit LESS challenging than the game in Flynn's time on the same golf course (Upper Cascades). We all know why that is and we all know that presents various challenges for golf architects and golf courses.  

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne
That proposed 14th is amazing...if I remember correctly that hole was on comparatively level land. Do you know why it was never implemented?"

It is relatively flat being a gentle consistant rise from tee to green of about 15 feet or so.

The bunkering on 12 and 13 was increasingly sophisticated.  When Flynn moved the stream on 13 he placed cross bunkers on a diagonal replacing the stream.  For Flynn this was a better hazard as there was a chance for recovery.  Some of the  bunkers on 12 and 13 were built up in the rear and hid some of the landing area while also foreshortening the apparent distance to the green.