[DMoriarty]

Rick, I am sure you didn't mean any disrespect, but you did link Watson to the original nine (despite that you don't even know if it was him), and quoted someone saying it was a "goat course." You also linked Ross to the project in 1916 but neglected to mention that the plan reflecting the current place was already in existence prior to the  Ross visit, and that the "goat course" wasn't anything near Watson's final project.  In short, you aren't exactly presenting the evidence of Watson's involvement in a favorable or a complete light.  The fact is, the club itself was unequivocal about Watson's involvement, and was quite positive about his design.  That is not reflected in your coverage in this thread, although it was covered in your book.

As for open questions, there are of course always open questions.   But unless there is information with which I am unfamiliar, the question of who was responsible for the plan at White Bear - a plan still largely reflected on the ground today - there is no open question. According to the club at the time, it was Watson, and Ross and Vardon helped develop Watson's plan.

This has been covered repeatedly. 
_____________________________________

PCraig,  I think there used to be a version of the map posted (by Tom MacWood I think, but I am not sure) on one of the old threads, but I can't find it.  Unfortunately most of Tom MacWood's attachments were lost with one of the previous upgrades.  Perhaps Rick has a copy.

[Shane Wright]

I have heard both the love and even some say WBYC is overrated.  I am certainly in the former camp.  The uniqueness of the course is inspiring.  Many classic golf designs were influenced by architects coming here from studying or living abroad.  WBYC is the type of course that is unique to the point of being able to offer this same sort of inspiration.  There are many greens that I have not seen anywhere that could be used as inspiration for other designs.  #'s 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 are these types of greens.  In fact, if someone were to ask me what my 5 favorite greens in the world are, #16 is one of them. 


I could care less who should be attributed the most credit for designing it.  Rick has investigated it at length.  No one is ever going to know for sure.  But I offer that the mystery behind it should not be the reason or curiosity to play it.  The bottom line is that if offers features, holes, designs, and green complexes that may not be found anywhere else.  It's a museum piece that knows that a mustache should never be painted on the Mona Lisa.

[Jason Thurman]

Shane, I agree. The only thing compelling to me about the attribution is that, as Tom Doak mentioned earlier in this thread, the club's reputation might actually diminish somewhat if we all thought it was a William Watson design instead of a Ross. It's a shame, because having played it, I don't believe that Ross would have routed it nearly so boldly and I think the Watson routing is what makes the course the genuinely unique gem that it is. I'm sure the course is better for Ross' work (and Vardon's as well), but I also have no doubt that Watson found a routing that Ross would have considered to be too aggressive in the way it tackles the rolling topography. To me, it's a shame that so many courses are overlooked simply because they have a designer's name stamped on them that doesn't immediately make us assume they're great.


What is the nature of the criticism that the course receives from its handful of local detractors? Is it too quirky? Too short?

[PCCraig]

What is the nature of the criticism that the course receives from its handful of local detractors? Is it too quirky? Too short?

One man's "quirky" is another man's "goofy." You have to remember that the most highly regarded courses by locals here in town are Hazeltine, Interlachen, Minikahda, Woodhill, etc...all pretty traditionally straightforward designs (no disrespect intended, just that there isn't a whole lot of quirk at say, Interlachen).


Depending on the speed of the greens and pin locations, the greens at WBYC can be a lot to swallow for many mid-to-high handicap golfers. And I also think it's dismissed unfairly by some people locally as being short. 

[Shane Wright]

Jason,


Although I have not heard a specific reason from anyone who has uttered the word "overrated" I suspect it might have to do with yardage with respect to a couple of par 5's.  I also know from experience that if someone gets the opportunity to play WBYC and chooses to ride in a cart (right, wrong, or indifferent), they are going to probably miss a lot of the unique details of the course. 


Shane

[PCCraig]

Shane, I agree. The only thing compelling to me about the attribution is that, as Tom Doak mentioned earlier in this thread, the club's reputation might actually diminish somewhat if we all thought it was a William Watson design instead of a Ross.

That's interesting...personally I don't identify WBYC with Ross as strongly as some other courses because I don't really think it needs an architect's name to stand out as much as a run of the mill suburban parkland course in Chicago might use Ross' name to boost it's own prestige.


But someone there must value the Ross "pedigree" as there is a small bronze statue of him in the main clubhouse living room.

[Morgan Clawson]

I took a pretty comprehensive set of pictures of WBYC this summer and will post them in the next few days.

[PCCraig]

I took a pretty comprehensive set of pictures of WBYC this summer and will post them in the next few days.

That would be awesome, Morgan.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()