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.


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #100 on: November 23, 2009, 02:37:04 PM »
TMac,

Do you think the Oakmont routing is weak?  I am reviewing it in my mind over lunch and can't say it is.  Yeah, 9 goes uphill to steep, and the Fazio extensions have necessarily put some tees in odd locations to get length, but the routing is fine, even if I agree no one say much about it, and they do mention the bunkers and difficult greens.

I know I could look this up, but what is Oakmont's tourney history compared to some of the other courses you mentioned?  I know Oakmont didn't host a major until 1919 and never looked back, but what tourneys did some other courses you mention hold?  And, I am under the impression that Oakmont because of its difficulty made a name for itself a lot earlier, but I would have to look that up, as well.

I know that either of our opinions - and mine in particular - are somewhat subjective.  I know there were penal courses before Oakmont, but felt like it was known for taking it to the extreme, even in that era before strategic design took over.  So, relevant to your topic, is "perfecting" a design theory over what went before a groundbreaking course or not?

Did you read my posts?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #101 on: November 23, 2009, 02:43:31 PM »

As for the routing of Oakmont, are you really asking me that seriously? Do you think the routing of Oakmont isn't that good and if so why do you think that?   ???


Yes, that what I'm asking. Why is Oakmont's routing one of the best ever?

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #102 on: November 23, 2009, 02:47:29 PM »
Mac,

i had the pleasure of playing Machrihanish Dunes a few weeks ago and IMHO it is  a truly revolutionary golf course. It is an absolute joy and could possibly be the worlds one and only truly sustainable golf course. This course goes beyond minimalism in not only it's design but also in it's maintenance. i really hope that people get to experience and understand what Southworth are trying to achieve there as everyone in the golf industry (especially GCA's) could learn an awful lot from it.

robin

Robin

I haven't yet played Machrihanish Dunes, only flown over it But I do think that there's a fair bit of hype in what you say there, for one thing I would guess that there is quite a few courses round the remote parts of the UK who have a minimalist maintenance regime, and not because of their Planning Permission either. Its been many years since I played it but Brora springs to mind as do the courses mentioned on the Shetlands Island thread.

Seems to me that they are truning a negative into a positive by means of a bit of spin.

Niall

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #103 on: November 23, 2009, 02:50:32 PM »

Oakmont...jury still appears to be out.  My gut tells me if certainly was "very good" and therefore should be on the list.  Perhaps knowing who did the original routing and things of that nature might prove to be too opaque (did I spell that right?).  However, why is it consider "great" now?  When was this "greatness" installed?  There is a list of the site of the top courses in 1939...is Oakmont of that list?  Once again, if so...what happend from 1903 to 1939 to propel the course up the list?


What does 1939 have to do with 1903? Oakmont was considerably strengthened in the 1910s.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #104 on: November 23, 2009, 02:54:18 PM »
What about St. George's Hill as "The First Great Golf/Residential Combined Development..."?

Chuck I know you'll find it in many books but I have problems with that defintion, if you add "gated" it makes more sense.   Huntercombe, Woking and Walton Heath were all developed to sell houses.  IN an earlier post I ask what was the first? There may be others e.g. I mention the plans at Thurlestone.


Sean mentioned links courses.

I would include
Westward Ho,first in England
Hoylake hugely inflential and important base outside Scotland
Princes first designed with Haskell bal in mind.

(I can add dates tonight)

Tony

For what its worth, and I've mentioned it before but the guy who owned the Kelvinside area of Glasgow, up and coming posh area around 1890's had a course built by Old Tom and Willie Fernie, basically the Nicklaus/Doak combination of the day and restricted it to "residenters" of Kelvinside ie. you had to have bought a house from him to be able to play.

The course was built in 1894.

Niall

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #105 on: November 23, 2009, 02:55:29 PM »
Tom M...

You guys are killing me here.  Here is what I posted previously...

"Oakmont...jury still appears to be out.  My gut tells me if certainly was "very good" and therefore should be on the list.  Perhaps knowing who did the original routing and things of that nature might prove to be too opaque (did I spell that right?).  However, why is it consider "great" now?  When was this "greatness" installed?  There is a list of the site of the top courses in 1939...is Oakmont of that list?  Once again, if so...what happend from 1903 to 1939 to propel the course up the list."

This is why I posted the 1939 list.  In your own words, which you sent to Jeff B.  "Did you read my post?" :)
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #106 on: November 23, 2009, 03:12:20 PM »
Oakmont is kind of a mystery in those early years. There doesn't appear to be much written about what kind of golf course it was in the very beginning. But there is no question that it was very penal very early. I am almost certain that Oakmont was the first to have ultra fast greens. And I can't remember the exact year, but Ted Ray sure bitched about the bunkers. That would have been around 1913?

I think the route is brilliant. It uses a much larger tract of land than most of the other courses before it. And I don't think the route has changed other than in length, and some remodeling of greens. I can't imagine a better routing for that property than the one it has. But then I'm not an architect either. I just remember every kind of angle out there when I played it. But then I'm not much of a golfer either.  :-X

Fownes was great player and he wanted Oakmont to host championship golf. How many other courses were as proactive as Oakmont to host championship golf in those days, and to present a field of play worthy of the best players in the world? I think that is ground breaking.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #107 on: November 23, 2009, 03:16:18 PM »
Mac
I did read your post and was confused as to why you would reference something from 1939 when discussing the state of a golf course in 1903. There was a lot that happened in golf architecture between 1903 and 1939, and not just with Oakmont, just about every important golf course changed in some way during that period, and many in significant ways.  Please explain why 1939 should have any bearing in 1903.

Are you familiar with the history of Oakmont's golf course? 

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #108 on: November 23, 2009, 03:19:12 PM »
Oakmont is kind of a mystery in those early years. There doesn't appear to be much written about what kind of golf course it was in the very beginning. But there is no question that it was very penal very early. I am almost certain that Oakmont was the first to have ultra fast greens. And I can't remember the exact year, but Ted Ray sure bitched about the bunkers. That would have been around 1913?

I think the route is brilliant. It uses a much larger tract of land than most of the other courses before it. And I don't think the route has changed other than in length, and some remodeling of greens. I can't imagine a better routing for that property than the one it has. But then I'm not an architect either. I just remember every kind of angle out there when I played it. But then I'm not much of a golfer either.  :-X

Fownes was great player and he wanted Oakmont to host championship golf. How many other courses were as proactive as Oakmont to host championship golf in those days, and to present a field of play worthy of the best players in the world? I think that is ground breaking.

What makes you believe it was very penal early on? What did Ted Ray say about the bunkers?

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #109 on: November 23, 2009, 03:49:27 PM »
Mac,
Oswald Kirkby, NJ amateur champ in '12, '14 & '16, after writing about good holes at NGLA, Baltusrol, GCGC & Myopia,  chose not to describe any of the holes at Oakmont (and a couple others) for an article he was writing. Instead, he wrote:

"On a lesser scale I shall dispose of courses such as Huntingdon Valley, Englewood, Oakmont, Pittsburgh, and Oakland. They are all more or less alike—very good links, to be sure, but nothing particularly distinctive about any of their holes".

This was in 1915, so I think it's some idea of how important the contributions of the son were to Oakmont's eventual 'success'.   
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #110 on: November 23, 2009, 04:03:13 PM »
Jim...BOOM!!!!  That is what I was looking for...excellent!!!

Tom M...I was trying to figure out when Oakmont became great.  It is considered great now and we are having a debate concerning if it was great in 1903.  I recalled that excellent piece you posted on the "In My Opinion" portion of this site.  This piece convinced me that it was great in 1939.  Which is what I thought was the case.  So, my question was what happened between 1903 to 1939 to make it great and when did that occur?  I was simply trying to reduce the timeframe to something more managable by including some then contemporary experts opinions on the course in 1939.  

Since then Jim busted out his post that states one persons opinion that the course was not great in 1915.  Once again this narrows its timeframe regarding transformation to greatness to sometime between 1915 and 1939.  As I don't know the detailed history of Oakmont...I have to leave it up to further self-study or the other members of this site to help come up with what made it great during that time frame and when that occured.

However, the "kicker", at least for this thread, was groundbreaking or revolutionary in 1903?  I am tempted to say "no" based on this latest piece of informatoin....but perhaps its routing, which it appears that a majority of members of GCA regard as excellent, might make it in fact groundbreaking.


Once again...great stuff!!!
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 06:35:20 PM by Mac Plumart »
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #111 on: November 23, 2009, 05:03:22 PM »
Mr. MacWood,

Now please give me a break, I was only 14 years off.   :o

From the 1927 US Open Ted Ray stated:

"The greens were the most beautiful and the fastest I ever played on."

He tallied 78 putts in just two rounds, and he was one of the better putters then.

"I thought of pasting a bit of stamp paper on my putter blade. That slows your ball up a bit. I tired three putters--a rare thing for me. But I couldn't get the touch."

Of the bunkers he complained:

"These bunkers now with the ribbed sand......the recovery shot from sand--wind blown sand; not ploughed sand--is a distinct golf shot and a fine one; it calls for great skill and accurate execution. The green may be a couple hundred yards away, and a mound at the front of the bunker in line. I don't care for the mounds as another point. In a furrow, as on this course, you, or I, or any man, has nothing to do but explode. We are all on the same level. We are reduced to the same place we would be if the area of the bunker were drawn on the grass in whitewash, and the rule was that when the ball went within the lines, it should be chucked out a few yards, and the stroke counted."

Is any this ground breaking? I think it absolutely did represent another level of tournament preparations, albeit not in the time frame we are discussing here.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #112 on: November 23, 2009, 05:05:06 PM »
Bradley...

Nice!

What's 14 years amongst friends!!
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #113 on: November 23, 2009, 05:06:19 PM »
What about St. George's Hill as "The First Great Golf/Residential Combined Development..."?

Chuck I know you'll find it in many books but I have problems with that defintion, if you add "gated" it makes more sense.   Huntercombe, Woking and Walton Heath were all developed to sell houses.  IN an earlier post I ask what was the first? There may be others e.g. I mention the plans at Thurlestone.


Sean mentioned links courses.

I would include
Westward Ho,first in England
Hoylake hugely inflential and important base outside Scotland
Princes first designed with Haskell bal in mind.

(I can add dates tonight)

Tony

For what its worth, and I've mentioned it before but the guy who owned the Kelvinside area of Glasgow, up and coming posh area around 1890's had a course built by Old Tom and Willie Fernie, basically the Nicklaus/Doak combination of the day and restricted it to "residenters" of Kelvinside ie. you had to have bought a house from him to be able to play.

The course was built in 1894.

Niall

Thanks Niall , I missed your previous reference and until someone comes up with something earlier then as far as I'm concerned that's the clear favourite for the Title of First Housing Development.

I’m assuming it’s an NLE?  Was it particularly well thought of and how long did it last?  Have you had the chance to look at period coverage because I wonder how well known it was.  What was it called and did it eventually become housing?  Sorry for all the questions but it’s something I’ve long wondered about.

I’ll try and find a thread where I posited the idea that one of the reasons why the Walton Heath, Sunningdale (not Woking as above – my mistake) and Huntercombe were breakthroughs was because they were paid for by Developers, not a group of local businessmen, who wanted something special to promote their developments. I remember Tom Doak saying that they were breakthroughs because they had recieved more time and effort than other courses. It seems that the two ideas happily overlapped and it was only later that housing came to mean formulaic golf.


Sean I believe Sunnigdale and Walton Heath were both financial successes for the moneymen who owned the land around the courses.


Melvyn must be pleased another first by Old Tom that the Americans have picked up so enthusiastically!  ;)


DM and TEP thanks for the well argued posts which I'll read carefully, but for now I think I'll decline the opportunity to debate M. with you.   ;D ;D

« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 05:11:36 PM by Tony_Muldoon »
Let's make GCA grate again!

TEPaul

Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #114 on: November 23, 2009, 06:26:08 PM »
Bradley:

You produced a quotation from one very noted golfer from the old days, Ted Ray, and what he said about Oakmont's bunkers. That was from 1927 and what Ray said was almost universally what just about every good or great golfer from those days said about Oakmont, including Bob Jones. It seems back then if one spoke about Oakmont it was almost always on the subject of Oakmont's bunkers. What Jones said about Oakmont's bunkers was perhaps the single most critical thing I have ever seen Jones say about any golf course or anything to do with a golf course or architecture.

Why was that? It's pretty simple really, the Fowneses, particularly W.C., the son, was a virtual maniac on the difficulty or penality of bunkers and he sure didn't mind admitting it (after all he was the one who coigned the term "a shot missed should be a stroke lost forever" ) and finding his own new and revolutionary ways to make them more so. Just the invention of those remarkable weighted furrow rakes is a perfect example. And he with his primary greenkeeper, Emil Loeffler, completely revolutionized the concept of real greenspeed maybe 20 to 30 years before any other course and club did (that is a truly fascinating story in and of itself, that I believe I can document and through someone who was actually there and mowed those green back before 1950).

Is that alone---Oakmont's bunkers---the real reason or even the primary reason that course got so much respect or should be considered to be great golf course architecture?

I think not. At the end of W.C.'s administration and just before he died in the late 1940s (1950, I think) that course it is said had close to 300 bunkers. Is that what made it the great architecture it is? I think not. If they reduced the number of bunkers on that course to less than 100 bunkers I think it still would be one of the truly great courses and great architecture in the world. The greatness of Oakmont's architecture is very definitely unique, that's for sure----eg The Fowneses, particularly W.C. does not appear to have followed anyone else's model other than his own.

The point is the routing (not the bunkering or the green shapes and sizes because there was neither on that 1903 routing plan) is so similar to what that 1903 plan shows (sans tee lengthening) and as far as I can tell only a very limited number of greens have ever been significantly changed, obviously the best examples being #8 and #17. Some of the others including #1!!, #2, #3!, #5!, #6, #9, #10!!!, #12!!!!, #15! and #16 and even #18 are real works of genius and the fact is a number of those mentioned probably always have been whole lot more "natural landform" than most any, even including some close architectural analysts, realize.

You throw into that mix the variety of the holes individually, as well as in their sequencing, and you come up with a truly remarkable, revolutionary and groundbreaking golf course, golf architecture, AND routing, particularly for such an early time in the evolution of American golf architecture!
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 06:38:16 PM by TEPaul »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #115 on: November 23, 2009, 06:48:29 PM »
Tom Paul...

Would you consider it groundbreaking/revoltionary right from 1903 due to routing...or would you say 1927 when Ray is quoted regarding the tournament quality greens?

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

TEPaul

Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #116 on: November 23, 2009, 06:57:22 PM »
Mac:

As a routing I mean right from 1903 since one can see from that routing on that 1903 plan that the course is remarkably similar (routing-wise) to the way the course is today. Remarkably similar! A whole lot more similar than the way Merion East's routing was at the beginning, for instance, compared to the way it is today or even in the 1920s.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #117 on: November 23, 2009, 07:04:15 PM »
Thanks Tom.

Tony...I think it is, but the post has been "quoted" so much it might be Niall's post...but when you get around to it the dates on Westward Ho, Hoylake, and Princes are anxiously being awaited!  The "peanut" gallery hasn't rejected them, so they must be solid.  Thanks!!!

And what was the course built in 1894 to sell homes?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #118 on: November 23, 2009, 07:09:05 PM »
What about St. George's Hill as "The First Great Golf/Residential Combined Development..."?

Chuck I know you'll find it in many books but I have problems with that defintion, if you add "gated" it makes more sense.   Huntercombe, Woking and Walton Heath were all developed to sell houses.  IN an earlier post I ask what was the first? There may be others e.g. I mention the plans at Thurlestone.


Sean mentioned links courses.

I would include
Westward Ho,first in England
Hoylake hugely inflential and important base outside Scotland
Princes first designed with Haskell bal in mind.

(I can add dates tonight)

Tony

For what its worth, and I've mentioned it before but the guy who owned the Kelvinside area of Glasgow, up and coming posh area around 1890's had a course built by Old Tom and Willie Fernie, basically the Nicklaus/Doak combination of the day and restricted it to "residenters" of Kelvinside ie. you had to have bought a house from him to be able to play.

The course was built in 1894.

Niall

Thanks Niall , I missed your previous reference and until someone comes up with something earlier then as far as I'm concerned that's the clear favourite for the Title of First Housing Development.

I’m assuming it’s an NLE?  Was it particularly well thought of and how long did it last?  Have you had the chance to look at period coverage because I wonder how well known it was.  What was it called and did it eventually become housing?  Sorry for all the questions but it’s something I’ve long wondered about.

I’ll try and find a thread where I posited the idea that one of the reasons why the Walton Heath, Sunningdale (not Woking as above – my mistake) and Huntercombe were breakthroughs was because they were paid for by Developers, not a group of local businessmen, who wanted something special to promote their developments. I remember Tom Doak saying that they were breakthroughs because they had recieved more time and effort than other courses. It seems that the two ideas happily overlapped and it was only later that housing came to mean formulaic golf.


Sean I believe Sunnigdale and Walton Heath were both financial successes for the moneymen who owned the land around the courses.


Melvyn must be pleased another first by Old Tom that the Americans have picked up so enthusiastically!  ;)


DM and TEP thanks for the well argued posts which I'll read carefully, but for now I think I'll decline the opportunity to debate M. with you.   ;D ;D



Tony

Do you think of Sunningdale and Walton Heath as residential courses in the same way as St Georges Hill is?  OK, a developer may have been involved, but there are few houses nearby.  In a broader sense you are right, but in modern terms, Sunny and WH seem quite different.  

Ciao
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 07:45:39 PM by Sean Arble »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #119 on: November 23, 2009, 07:12:03 PM »

Mac

Hoylake 1862, Westwward Ho 1864, which Princes ?

Melvyn

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #120 on: November 23, 2009, 07:14:31 PM »
Melvyn...

Frankly, I am not sure on the Princes.  I think it was referenced that the course was built specifically for the haskell ball.

Mac
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #121 on: November 23, 2009, 07:18:00 PM »
Mac,

I think you have to ask yourself the question of what it is about a golf course's routing that would make it revolutionary? Do you think the fact that it's remained the same for many years qualifies? Where is the groundbreaking aspect of that? There are probably earlier stick routings, Bendelow did hundreds of them, that remain the same.  

"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #122 on: November 23, 2009, 07:29:06 PM »
Jim...

Great points. 

Here is what I am thinking, and as always I am not the expert...simply a very interested student, Oakmont is historic and great.  I think tihs is not in dispute.

It could be groundbreaking/revoltionary...could be.  It would appear to me that its morphing into championship form was, perhaps, revolutionary due to Ray's quotes on the green speeds.  But I do not possess enough knowledge to make that call.  And when you add in routing, bunkers, "penal" design...it could be groundbreaking and revoltionary...but it certainly isn't unanimous. 

Maybe I should simply let it lie and have each individual reader make up their own mind if it qualifies for their list?  It simply isn't as clear cut as the other courses on this list. 
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #123 on: November 23, 2009, 07:41:43 PM »
Mac,
It was written that WC was determined to make Oakmont the toughest course in the world, and he (along with two different supers) and plenty of assistants lengthened holes, reduced par, dug nearly unplayable ditches in the rough for purposes of drainage and general nuisance, canted all the greens (this would suggest that they built new ones from those that were first created) to improve drainage and cut them very short, and they brought the total number of bunkers up to over a dozen per hole.

This was not his father's course.  ;D   


p.s. Oakmont is historic and great.  I think this is not in dispute.-Mac.       I agree
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 07:47:51 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #124 on: November 23, 2009, 10:18:16 PM »
TEP
Why is Oakmont's routing one of the best ever?

How many bunkers did the 1903 course have?