News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Cirba

Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« on: June 27, 2007, 02:02:58 PM »
From the local Allentown newspaper;  

(Great to see that the Fazio group "totally overhauled" Oakmont.   ::) )

btw, for those of you who saw my subsequently deleted post last night on the "Basher" thread, I'll repeat that the war is over and we have lost.



Saucon Valley goes Strong-er
Host of Women's Open in '09 returns to its roots with Old Course.

By Mark Wogenrich Of The Morning Call

The membership won't go back to the new championship tees, save for the single-digit handicappers and the foolhardy. Heck, even club president George Burke won't go back there.

''I may drive by and look,'' he said, ''but that's about it.''

As it nears the two-year countdown to the 2009 U.S. Women's Open, Saucon Valley Country Club wants to reintroduce its Old Course, the 86-year-old layout that will host the tournament. When it reopens April 21, the course will show off the results of a nearly completed, 18-month renovation that freshened its look while retaining the characteristics of Herbert Strong's classic design.

The highlights of the master plan, administered by Tom Fazio's design group, include all new bunkering, four rebuilt greens and seven new tee boxes that will add 350 yards to the course. No wonder, then, that the theme of the renovation became ''longer and stronger.''

''We asked ourselves, 'What would Herbert Strong do if he laid out the course today?' '' said Burke, who also will serve as general chairman for the 2009 Women's Open. ''Those are the concepts we used to make the course stronger, given today's technology and players. The results are phenomenal.''

In fall 2005, a few months after winning its bid for the Women's Open, Saucon Valley approached Fazio's design group about a long-range master plan to update the Old Course. The membership approved the plan last June, and construction took place primarily over the fall and early winter. All renovations are scheduled to be completed in June.

The club chose Fazio's group because of its experience with master plans at other United States Golf Association venues, including Oakmont, Winged Foot and Merion. It also had connections: Before coming to Saucon Valley in 2005, superintendent Jim Roney worked at Sand Ridge Golf Club in Ohio, designed by Fazio senior architect Tom Marzolf.

Marzolf, who supervised the Old Course project, has worked on several U.S. Open course renovations, including the total overhaul of Oakmont Country Club, site of this year's U.S. Open. A Jenkintown native, Marzolf knew Philadelphia courses quite well (he has worked extensively at Merion) but never had visited Saucon before 2005. It made a smart first impression.

''I tell the members all the time how lucky they are, because you couldn't build a place like this today,'' Marzolf said. ''Those three courses, the clubhouse, which is one of the neatest in all of golf, and all the facilities -- I couldn't imagine what that would cost in today's dollars.''

The Old Course had undergone two renovations since 1921, each of which tinkered with the layout. This time, the club wanted to adapt Strong's original playing concepts to today's game.

Fairway bunkers on several holes (including Nos. 1, 10 and 13) were moved farther from the tee boxes, bringing them back into play for today's longer hitters. And fairways at Nos. 12 and 15 were shifted to better approximate the course's original sightlines.

Of the four greens that were enlarged, two also were raised to reduce the severity of their slopes. The 14th green (unpopular among players at the 1992 and 2000 Senior Opens hosted by Saucon) received the most attention, being raised nine inches in the front to soften its sharp back-to-front tilt.

''All the old clubs of the 1920s are being retooled,'' Marzolf said. ''There's been a huge change in equipment, and architecture needs to adjust to that.''

The largest project, however, involved the course's 86 bunkers. All were emptied and cleaned, fitted with drainage and grass-faced to improve their aesthetic and penal nature. Also, 11 new bunkers were added, and some existing bunkers were deepened and rebuilt with sharper contours, giving them a cavernous feel.

''It was something that had never been done before at Saucon,'' said Andrew Warner, chairman of Saucon's golf and green committee. ''From a design and playability perspective, we wanted to hold strong to the idea of restoration. The way the bunkers are now is the way they were meant to be played.''

Though adding yardage was a ''minor part of the whole process,'' Warner said, it did change the course -- particularly for tournament play. Formerly 6,808 yards from the championship tees, the Old Course now has seven new tee boxes that will increase its length to 7,150 yards. That is an investment in the club's future as a tournament venue.

At that length (and with room to stretch to 7,500 yards, Marzolf said), the Old Course ''is certainly capable of hosting any kind of championship.'' He said he's eager to see LPGA Tour players test the venue (which will play at about 6,800 yards for the Women's Open) and would be intrigued to see the Old Course hold an event with long-hitting players, such as an NCAA championship.

''When you say, 'We are a championship club, and we want to host championships in the future,' you have to put the course on the ground,'' Marzolf said. ''That's the way you have to look at it. And that's what the club has done.''

mark.wogenrich@mcall.com

« Last Edit: June 27, 2007, 02:04:55 PM by MikeCirba »

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2007, 03:12:23 PM »
Has anyone played there yet? My membership application is still pending. ;D
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

peter_mcknight

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2007, 04:05:40 PM »
If the USGA plays the Old Course at nearly 6800 yards, that will be longer than they played the two senior opens:

1992:  6700 yards par 71
2000:  6749 yards par 71

The previous back tee yardage was 6808 yards par 71.  With the new tees, it is 7126 yards par 71.  The adds were as follows:

Hole 2:  40 yards (near the 5th tee on the short course)
Hole 5:  70 yards (near the 6th green area)
Hole 7:  25 yards
Hole 8:  45 yards (near the 6th tee on the Grace)
Hole 9:  35 yards (on the other side of the road)
Hole 12:  20 yards (near the 4th tee on the short course)
Hole 15:  25 yards
Hole 16:  60 yards (way way back towards the 12th fairway)

Knowing what has been reported, I would play SVCC Old the following way in 2009 (with the 13th becoming the 10th and the 12th becoming the 18th):

530/435/365/155/415/560/445/390/180--3475 yards par 36
335/180/590/435/420/345/385/165/415--3270 yards par 35
6745 yards par 71 (only 14 yards behind Cherry Hills)

Mike Erdmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2007, 08:00:41 PM »
Played the Old Course three weeks ago.  Work was still taking place on a few of the holes at the time.  I had not played the course before, so can't make any first-hand comparison of what was there before vs. what was changed.  The new bunker work certainly has a much more modern "Fazio look" than the existing untouched bunkers, with the deeper bunker cavities and faces, white sand (vs. existing tan sand) and more pronounced edging.  Not sure what the new grass type is they've used around the bunkers and greens that had work done, but it's quite wirey and difficult to do anything but just hack your way out of.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2007, 08:01:35 PM by Mike_Erdmann »

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2007, 10:11:53 PM »
Sad, by my standards, of what the game is all about - and by what a number of those that played before me, might have said.  

Played Kittansett for three days running.  John Kelly has brought back after total disaster weather this winter a challange unmeasurable.  It is great !

Go back to nature Saucon !

Mike_Cirba

Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2007, 10:31:59 PM »
Sad, by my standards, of what the game is all about - and by what a number of those that played before me, might have said.  

Played Kittansett for three days running.  John Kelly has brought back after total disaster weather this winter a challange unmeasurable.  It is great !

Go back to nature Saucon !

Ahh..Bill...

as long as places like Kittansett still exist, and no one worries about bringing a top USGA or PGA event there, you and I will still find our happy heavenly havens.

I just worry about what's still going to be around that's pure, unadulterated, natural fun for the next generation to discover.


Mike_Cirba

Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2007, 10:40:51 PM »
I started this thread today as a reaction to the "Bashing Bashers" thread that George Pazin initiated yesterday.

There was a time when a thread like this may have drawn full blown debate and even heated arguments here, concerning what is happening to the classic courses, what exactly constitutes a "restoration", how best to challenge the top players in this new age of technology", the pros and cons of "moving" hazards such as bunkers to places never previously conceived, the ultimate, logical end-game of flattening interestingly undulating greens to accommodate faster and faster green speeds, and some general discourse between those who feel that our classic courses need revamping to remain relevant versus those who see them as being compromised and ultimately homogenized and negated in importance by becoming just another rote "Championship Course".

Apparently, John Kavanaugh is right and those days of GCA are long since gone.

Perhaps Herbert Strong's Saucon Valley course doesn't elicit Strong reactions from this group, but why do I find myself wishing that there were at least one Tom MacWood remaining among us who would ask whether all this fuss is really necessary to host some professionals for four days, and whether our heritage is the price worth paying for modern tournament golf.

Instead, this thread seems to have landed with a resounding thud, and we seem more enthralled by equipment and rules discussions.

Oh well.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2007, 10:46:06 PM »
So Mike...was this thread about Saucon Valley, or about goading a bunch of people into talking junk about an architect?

Either way, I have never played Saucon Valley, or worked with Tom Marzoff. It seems that not many of our current group has much history at the course either.

Sorry I couldn't oblige....I feel like a total failure to the website.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Mike_Cirba

Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2007, 10:51:40 PM »
So Mike...was this thread about Saucon Valley, or about goading a bunch of people into talking junk about an architect?

Either way, I have never played Saucon Valley, or worked with Tom Marzoff. It seems that not many of our current group has much history at the course either.

Sorry I couldn't oblige....I feel like a total failure to the website.

Joe

Hey Joe,

It's simply about another classic course where;

tees have been moved back and significant yardage added
hazards have been moved
bunkers have been deepened
fairways have been narrowed
greens have been recontoured and flattened

All in the name of remaining relevant for a 4 day USGA event every 15 years or so.

I didn't put this out as bait to lead to a trashing of any particular architect.

I put it out to discuss and debate some very controversial (at least to me) assertions made by said architect that are stated as unchallenged fact.

And yes...to stir a stagnant pot.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2007, 10:54:04 PM »
Joe,

The sadly humorous thing to me is simply this;

When the club asked themselves the question, "What would Herbert Strong do today?", I'm betting dollars to donuts that said architect hasn't studied another single course that Herbert Strong ever designed before answering.

« Last Edit: June 27, 2007, 11:03:01 PM by MikeCirba »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2007, 11:05:36 PM »
Mike,

I would agree that many of the said changes would hardly be recommended by most "sensitive" design firms. However, as Pat Mucci has said many, many times...the responsibility of golf course stewardship lies primarily with club governance. At Saucon Valley, they obviously felt they had to allow these changes to take place to remain relevant for whatever it is that they are trying to be.

There are a lot of misguided actions that take place on golf courses.

Now that I gave in to your goading, I feel kind of dirty.....but happier for the moment.

 ;D

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Mike_Cirba

Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2007, 11:07:45 PM »
Ah c'mon Joe...you've always seemed like the type of fella to me who liked to get his hands dirty. ;)

We're both happier now, albeit in naughty sort of way.   But, we'll get over it.  ;D

Peter Pallotta

Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2007, 11:23:47 PM »
Mike
you wrote: "Perhaps Herbert Strong's Saucon Valley course doesn't elicit Strong reactions from this group, but why do I find myself wishing that there were at least one Tom MacWood remaining among us who would ask whether all this fuss is really necessary to host some professionals for four days, and whether our heritage is the price worth paying for modern tournament golf."

Believe me when I say that I understand your sentiment and, from what I can tell from your posts over the months, understand and appreciate your basic perspective on and passion for these kind of subjects and questions. I enjoy your posts, and enjoyed Tom MacWood's very much too. But maybe the answer to your question is so simple and obvious that no one tends to answer it, i.e.

Question: "Is all this fuss necessary so as to host professionals for 4 days, especially at the cost of our heritage?"

Answer: "No".

Fine. Agreed. And then what?

Do you see what I mean? While a purist and traditionalist at heart mysef, about a lot of subjects, I can't get around that basic, practical, hard, annoying question/situation. Others disagree with us; they, unlike us, have the power to make the decisions that impact a classic old course. They choose change; we complain.

Is there no better way than that?

An honest question, Mike, not a smart-ass one.  

Peter

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2007, 11:26:35 PM »
An honest question, Mike, not a smart-ass one.  

Peter

I don't about that, Peter. For all your disclaimers, I'm beginning to wonder.... ;D (Obligatory, for you)

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2007, 11:27:04 PM »
Mike Cirba,

I don't know that the war is over and that we've lost, but, I would say we're swimming against the tide. ;D

Peter Pallotta

Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2007, 11:35:01 PM »
No, Joe, really.
It might seem that way because my fingers run away with me, and thinking out loud sometimes leads to questions that I didn't even know were coming. Then I have to decide whether they're sincere ones or not. I hope they are.

You know what they say: sincerity is the most important thing, so if you can fake that.....  

Peter

Also - it is true that I struggle with a very basic 'division' in my thinking. I won't bore you with the details, except to say that it has to do with how all this, the whole site and its underlying premises, relates (and might relate) to the future of the game of golf, and the public game at that.    
« Last Edit: June 27, 2007, 11:45:24 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2007, 11:44:07 PM »
So Mike...was this thread about Saucon Valley, or about goading a bunch of people into talking junk about an architect?

Either way, I have never played Saucon Valley, or worked with Tom Marzoff. It seems that not many of our current group has much history at the course either.

Sorry I couldn't oblige....I feel like a total failure to the website.

Joe

Hey Joe,

It's simply about another classic course where;

tees have been moved back and significant yardage added

If it's done to preserve the architectural integrity or intended play, I don't see that as a negative.  The real villain is the failure to control the I&B.
[/color]

hazards have been moved

I'm with you on that
[/color]

bunkers have been deepened
I don't think that's a bad thing.
If "elasticity" was a built in design feaure with respect to length, I think a case can be made for "elasticity" when it comes to bunker depth.  It's a matter of having the architectural features FUNCTION as intended, and I think deepening bunkers accomplishes that.
[/color]

fairways have been narrowed

I'm with you on that
[/color]

greens have been recontoured and flattened

I'm with you on that.
[/color]

All in the name of remaining relevant for a 4 day USGA event every 15 years or so.

My concept of global elasticity is being rejected.
More courses are tending to keep certain changes rather than return the golf course to its pre-tournament set up.
And, the bad thing about that is the copy cat influence this will have on other clubs.
[/color]

I didn't put this out as bait to lead to a trashing of any particular architect.

Mike, the architect is merely a professional tool meant to implement changes desired by the club.  The club, not the architect is the core culprit.
[/color]

I put it out to discuss and debate some very controversial (at least to me) assertions made by said architect that are stated as unchallenged fact.

Mike, it's their perspective based on what they do.
Surgeons see surgery as the solution.  Oncologists see chemotherapy as the solution.  Nutritionists see nutrition as the solution.  Spiritualists see faith/religion as the solution.

And, so it is with architects.

The problem is that 6 hours of Prime Time TV for four days does more to convey their message than all the typing you an everyone else on this site can do in a lifetime.

But, NEVER, NEVER give up.  ;D
[/color]


redanman

Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2007, 08:32:22 AM »
Played recently.

Strong's least "Strong" course (I hope) there wasn't that much to work with there to begin with.

Lousy property, lousy routing, one really good hole, the par 5 on the far west end of the property (the numbering changes) falling around a corner down the hill. Any interesting green contours are basically reduced or just plain MIA.  Several greens have a spine running through them, but that's it. There are a lot of orphan tees built 50 yards back that look ridiculous.  Fazio only built one at Bedminister, for example on #18 to add 100 yards.  SVO has perhaps five 40-70 yards back.  Just plain stupid, at least you could blame the ball and COR.

Add Fazio's renovation magic and you'll get the picture. Wavy edged crashing wave bunkers du jour  now dot the landscape.

I started to fall asleep at one point.

The changes appeal to the professional/elite amateur mindset, but it's still a Doak 5-6 at best. Consider this a pan, not a pick.

Mr. Mucci

In Orthopedics we say

"When you're a hammer, everything's a nail."  Feel free to use that.


Mr. Erdmann

A-series bent greens, wiry bluegrass collars.  Just stand with your feet 2 feet in front of the ball and hinge your wrists and just drop the club on the ball.  Just don't short-side yourself.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2007, 08:41:37 AM »
Bill,

Thanks for the synopsis.

I have never played Saucon Valley Old but have walked it several times during Senior Opens.

You're right that it has never been a startlingly good course, and that the Gordon's probably removed most of the interesting stuff by Strong and Maxwell (cepting for a coupla really cool greens like the turtle-back par three and some with significant slope).

I haven't seen the changes yet, so my comments were not meant to be specific to SVGC, but instead about the "tournament course" philosophy voiced by Marzolff that seems to suddenly get a pass here.

Or, has it just become so pervasive that we no longer react to it negatively, sort of like disco in the 70s?   ::) :P

Peter,

It's a really good question and like Patrick, I'm not opposed to lengthening, although sometimes it comes off as ugly, incongruous, and many courses just don't got the room to do it.

I'm not even sure I'm opposed to bunker deepening, if it can help them to become a more effective hazard for players other than the mid-handicap member.

However, I am opposed on principle to the permanent narrowing of fairways as was done at Oakmont, proposed at Baltusrol, and elsewhere, and don't get me started on the insanity of flattening greens so that you can cut them shorter.   :-\

Now, if you have any other smart assed questions... ;)

Patrick,

I must be getting old because I'm finding myself more and more in agreement with you every day.  ;D
« Last Edit: June 28, 2007, 08:46:59 AM by MikeCirba »

Sean Remington (SBR)

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2007, 09:18:30 AM »
  Another chapter in a sad novel. :(

redanman

Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2007, 11:04:00 AM »
Bill,
.......... really cool greens like the turtle-back par three and some with significant slope.................

Let's just say that if you hold your breath looking for that one, you'll turn blue.

I think the 4th has the best green of the threes now although they did expand the right side of #9.

The three at the north end of the property (again # depends on which routing you are discussing) has notably been flattened.  The caddie said that Nicklaus thought it was too hard in 2000.  :-X

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2007, 12:09:46 PM »
Mike,

In looking at the top 15 courses as rated by Golf Digest, 7 of them will likely never host a major tournament.  PV, CP, Seminole, Crystal Downs, Sand Hills, NGLA, and PD.  And up until recently you could have put Merion in the last.

Assuming these courses more or less remain the same, don't add length, and keep thier green intact, then they will be preserved for the most part.  Perhaps a good strategy is to identify the best courses in the world, lobby for them to remain unchanged, and let the other courses do what they will to attract a major.  Sure Augusta National is probably a lost cause, but at the current rate of players bombing the ball, how much longer will PB, WF, Muifield Village, or even Shinnecock, be able to host majors??

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2007, 12:19:53 PM »
I started this thread today as a reaction to the "Bashing Bashers" thread that George Pazin initiated yesterday.

Nice to see someone was paying attention! Actually, I had the Fazio and anti-strategy thread in mind when I started my thread, so we are on the same page.

Wish I could contribute more, but at least we have you and Bill.

Where's Jax to bash the bashers? I don't believe he's ever passed up an opportunity.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Peter Pallotta

Re:Saucon Valley - Old Course New
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2007, 12:22:10 PM »
Mike - thanks.
You know, in ways that I'm still trying to understand, I think there is a thread that runs from the past (i.e. the earliest days of golf in America, with its design philosophies and agronomy issues and thoughts about the nature of the game) and stretches out right to the future of gca and the game of golf, both near term and far.

So, some issues/practices seem more important/relevant to me than others (rightly or wrongly). For me, one of the important ones is bunkers. For some strange reason, what I most dislike reading about is the replacment of perfectly good, tan-coloured bunker sand with some unnaturally white sand (all so clean you could probably eat it, or confuse it with salt). When I think that, what people should actually be thinking about is whether new designs should even include bunkers AT ALL (except in naturally sandy soils/conditions), the thought that the current trend seems to be going in a completely opposite direction really throws me off.

These white-sand 'symbols' can really have the power to shape decisions far and wide -- and, I'm convinced, to the real detriment of modest, public courses, and of low-cost construction and maintenance practices. I just don't know what to do about that.

Anyway, not really to the point of this thread at all, but I just wanted to share a little more of where I'm coming from.

Peter