CC of Virginia (Flynn ?)

[mark chalfant]

Any thoughts on the  courses here, although I believe James River hosted  USGA Amateur in the 1970s, not too much is mentioned.  How does tihs course compare with Flynns work in Philadelphia  and Ohio. Are the  layout and greens well preserved ?
thanks

[Mike Hoak]

Wayne can probably add more details to how it compares to other Flynn designs.  

To my knowledge, CC of Virginia-James River has undergone at least three renovations.  The first was undertaken about ten years after the course opened and was carried out by George O'Neil.  In the early nineties, the club brought in Rees Jones for a course renovation.  He made significant changes to the bunkers and the greens.  

After several years went by, the membership was not particularly happy with the redesign and hired Lester George to "restore the course" around 2000 or 2001.  They based the restoration on a 1937 aerial photograph.  However, several lakes on the front nine and other features added since Flynn prevented them from doing a complete restoration of the Flynn design.  At the time, George said that the intent was to bring back the strategy of Flynn.

Others with more knowledge of Flynn can comment on how successfully that was done.

[Cabell Ackerly]

Mike has it about right regarding the evolution of the design. I don't believe O'Neil's changes were very significant, but that is not confirmed. RTJ Sr. made some modifications prior to the '55 US Amateur, and significant tree planting occurred prior to the '75 US Amateur in an effort to make the course "harder".

Fred Findlay actually claims to have designed the course. He was the first superintendent, and he likely had a major hand in constructing it. What input he may have had in the design is unknown however. The current course is actually the combination of 2 nines from separate 18-hole designs from Flynn - the "Hill" and "Valley" courses. The other nines were never built.

Rees Jones did a major renovation in '92. Besides adding 2 significant ponds on #1 and #6, he redesigned all the bunkers and greens. The membership was very split with their reactions to Rees's work. Some liked it, and other really hated it. I don't think anyone loved it.

Lester George was kind enough to add another pond on #4 as part of his "restoration". I've seen the 1937 aerial he refers to, and to infer strategic design principles for the entire course from that photo sounds like BS to me. Lester also re-did all the bunkers and softened green contours on every hole. I'll give him credit that his renovation was better than Rees's, but to call it a restoration of any sort is bogus in my opinion.

I never saw the course prior to some time in the 80's, so I really can't comment on how it used to play; but the pre-1992 version is the best setup I've seen. Rees arguably "ruined" it. Lester improved upon Rees's work overall, but his all new 4th hole is an abomination in my opinion. The fact that some members love the man-made creek flowing into the new pond does very little to relieve my disappointment in his design.

I've only played a handful of other Flynn's, but I wouldn't compare the River course favorably to Philadelphia Country Club or the Cascades. The back nine ("Hill") is pretty strong, but the front nine is routed across a pretty bland piece of property. From what I've read, I would imagine the River wouldn't fare too well against many of the Philadelphia or Ohio Flynns.

[Lester George]

Mark,

The James River course was indeed an interesting project.  Cabell is free to dislike some of my work and is in fact correct in some of his conclusions.  He is, however, misinformed at the objectives of the Club leadership and has no idea what he is talking about in some cases.  By the time we had consensus about what the leadership thought they could "sell" it was my job to put in place as many architectural implementations as we could reasonably accomplish.  I'm not sure we ever stated that we were doing a "strict" restoration of the Flynn course because it is impossible and nonpracticle to even try that.  You don't get to take the ponds for example because now they are considered jurisdictional.  

However unfortunate, golf architects always have to balance what should be with what could and will be.  Because Cabell is not in the official "loop" of decision making at his club, he only has his opinion based on what someone else is telling him.  He is smarter than to believe that I am out there doing my own thing and not vetting most decisions by the power brokers for inclusion in the final product.  

I do personally think that the course is extremely representative of Flynns work with Findlay input.  I would not however call it dramatically like the Philly work.  Thats because it has been changed so many times.  Starting with O'Neil and going through the club decision makers in the 50's, 60's, 70s' and through the 90's.  I was there the day Fred Ridley (75 amateur champion) played the course after I finished it.  He was very complimentary and relived many of the shots and told stories of his rounds there.  I am happy to say he was pleased with what we had accomplished during our portion of the work.

Lester

[Cabell Ackerly]

Lester,
 To say I have no idea what I am talking about in some cases is a bit strong. CCV is big club, and the membership is very divided in their opinions, but I'm pretty well aware of what your marching orders were, and by no means have I ever thought you were making decisions in a vacuum. But in the end - you're putting your name on the product; so I'm assuming you stand behind the decisions that were made? It’s very easy to take all the credit for the new 4th hole from those who fancy that type of thing, but then you can’t turn around and point your finger at the “power brokers” when someone says they don’t like it.

So is the new pond on #4 considered “jurisdictional” now?

[Lester George]

Cabell,

You have read too much into my response.  I am profoundly proud of the fourth hole at CCV River and think it is a vast improvement over the old one which was destroyed over the years by people trying to fiddle with it.  In fact, when I arrived, the green was almost 8200 square feet.  the original was less than 5000 square feet.  The par threes on the River are architecturally lacking in my mind and one of them needed a forced carry (no I don't include 14 as the same kind of forced carry).  

Since the 4th was hampered by lack of air movement and poor drainage, it was chosen by the leadership to change.  My charge was to make it significantly better, which I believe most members agree that it is, as do I.  The treatment of the stream was not my doing and I have insisted since the day someone "overstoned" it that it be changed to a more natural look.  My plan was to have fist sized gravel in the bottom of the stream to look like the stream to the left of the tees.  Anyway, they have not taken it out which I personally have a problem with.  

Believe me, I respect your right to not like it.  And yes, my name is on it and I do like it.  But in my business there is always someones elses influence on how it is maintained and protected in it's originality.  At CCV, the squeaky wheels often get the grease and, unfortunately, most of them do not know the total circumstances and have no idea what they are talking about.  To lump you into that category may have been strong, but I'm not sure wrong.  Maybe someday we will get together and discuss stuff like this, your call.  804-272-4700.

Lester

[Lester George]

Cabell,

The pond at four took a permit to build.  It is jurisdictional now and would take a permit to remove (which I'm not sure the club could justify given what they did to get it built).  Cheers!

Lester

[Cabell Ackerly]

Lester,
It's good to know you aren't responsible for the rocks along that steam bed. There's no question those rocks and the "bridges" over the stream are responsible for at least 50% of my dislike of that hole - and possibly the entire renovation. I'm going to have to rethink my position on Lester George.

I agree that #4 needed work, but I feel that day lighting and potentially rerouting the creek that used to flow across #3 could have created a better hazard fronting the 4th green; and solved most of the drainage issues associated with that area. I would have rather not seen a new pond installed. I have no problem with the tree clearing that you initiated. I wish we could do more. (It’s scary that more trees are already starting to go up around the course).

The green is certainly unique and challenging, but I personally don't feel like it belongs on the River. For lack of a better form of expression, it seems out of "character". The only green it resembles is the 18th - which coincidently you re-designed as well.
 
It would be fun to get together and discuss this stuff. I’m sure I would learn a lot. I'm headed on vacation next week, but will try calling in July.