[Tommy Williamsen]

I played Charlotte CC last summer after Ron Prichard had done hos masterful restoration of the Donald Ross course.   I was fortunate to play with Bill Hal the Head Pro.  He was able to point out what changes were made to the course during reconstruction. In an interview he said the following.

"I  have see situations where RTJ did (his emphasis) save the original putting surfaces  At Oakland Hill he didn't erase most of the green surfaces.  So that's great.  But in Charlotte  for some reason he chose to put his own stamp on the golf course and erased things.  RTJ had enormous ego.  He and Dick Wilson were the two men who took over the helm of golf architecture after WWII, and they didn't have an incredible amount of respect for Ross. They knew him, when he was alive when they were beginning their careers, but I guess this was not at a time when Ross was recognized as one of the real masters of all time; that wasn't clear to them. And the didn't have a problem with changing Ross's work."

Do you know more examples where RTJ kept the integrity of the course and when they disregarded it?

[Ronald Montesano]

Wow, what a great thread...as an 70% defiler and 30% supporter of Senior RTJ, I can't wait to find out if there are more examples of his humility.

[Gary Slatter]

IMHO there were so many courses with the Donald Ross name associated,  they (DW & RTJ) probably had no idea which to save.  
I think Dick Wilson might have had a lot of respect for Donald Ross, but he was also building his own name, as was RTJ.  
I feel that Donald Ross only became recognized as one of the masters of course design during my lifetime, not Wilson's or RTJ.

OT:  I'm happy that I did play a lot of Wilson's courses before they were renovated beyond recognition.

[Mike_Young]

hmmmmm.

He and Dick Wilson were the two men who took over the helm of golf architecture after WWII, and they didn't have an incredible amount of respect for Ross. They knew him, when he was alive when they were beginning their careers, but I guess this was not at a time when Ross was recognized as one of the real masters of all time; that wasn't clear to them. And the didn't have a problem with changing Ross's work."

And I don't think RTJ was much into Wilson either.....come to think of it I have never seen any type of article where GCA's are making note of all the other GCA's they love   IMHO Ross became a "real master" after years of very good care and maintenance from clubs and supts.....  

[Ronald Montesano]

Did Ross become a master because of RTJ and Wilson and Finger and Lee and Muirhead?  If not for that quintet, some others' ideas (parallel to the ideas of USA in general during that period) would have elevated Ross and his golden age brethren to classic status.  Imagine if the quintet had come first!!

[Jim_Kennedy]

There were 400+ courses per year being built at that time in history and I think it would be interesting to see just how many new courses, and renovations, were coming on line in the Charlotte area in the late 50s, early 60s. The club may have felt that a modernization by the foremost architect of the day (1962) was what they needed to stay afloat in a sea of competition,  or perhaps such a plan was suggested by RTJ. 
Another possibility, a lot of courses closed during WW11 or were left to grow wild. Then came the Korean Conflict. It could be that some Ross clubs were able to maintain their course better than others and Jones' opinions on the scope of the work he suggested was based on that.

Also, I think it should be taken into account that Ron Prichard moved over 1/3 of Ross' original greensites at Charlotte CC during his 'restovation'.  Maybe there wasn't much 'there' there when RTJ showed up in '62.

[JNC Lyon]

From what I gather at Oak Hill, RTJ did not change the locations of the original Ross greens.  Oak Hill's greens remained in their original sites until the Fazios rolled in during the 1970s renovation.

However, RTJ's new bunkering would often reduce the size of the greens.  For example, on the par 5 4th, Trent Jones' greenside bunkering pinched the entrance to the green and cut the green almost in half.  RTJ also changed the shape and contour of the greens.  At the par 5 13th, Ross' green was perfectly squared off.  Allegedly, it was also two-tiered.  After Trent Jones renovation and re-bunkering, the green assumed an oval shape and possessed a continuous back-to-front slope.  This configuration remains today. 

I would argue that the 13th improved after the Trent Jones renovation. He eliminated a pond in the driving area that greatly restricted the tee shot.  His new fairway bunkering in the second-shot landing area is much more strategic and fits perfectly into the terrain.  Finally, the greensite is much more natural.  The natural amphitheater in which the green sits never called for a square or two-tiered green.  The current green is much more graceful than the original version.

Trent Jones showed only limited humility in his renovation of Oak Hill.  The club rejected his more radical ideas, such as shifting the fairway on the short 14th into the field to the right and making it a sharp dogleg left.  Trent Jones undoubtedly had a huge ego and was, for the most part, not concerned with Ross' original intentions.  Yet this fact does not mean that all of his changes were for the worse.

[Joe Bausch]

I'm told that the changes at Aronimink by RTJ did not involve any of the green complexes.

Unfortunately it appears that El Tigre may choose to not experience this wonderful course this year.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

It would appear that RTJ knew Donald Ross quite well. Prior to setting out on his own design business, he worked with Stanley Thompson for quite a few years.

http://www.asgca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90&Itemid=72

[Tommy Williamsen]

There is a question that begs to be asked, "Are there times when a Ross course would be better off with a redesign?'  For one I can think of Pinehurst #4.  I liked it when I first played it 25 years ago but thought that Fazio (sorry 'bout that) made it better.  The problem, however, is who gets to make the decision whether to renovate or redesign.

[JNC Lyon]

There is a question that begs to be asked, "Are there times when a Ross course would be better off with a redesign?'  For one I can think of Pinehurst #4.  I liked it when I first played it 25 years ago but thought that Fazio (sorry 'bout that) made it better.  The problem, however, is who gets to make the decision whether to renovate or redesign.

From what I understand, Pinehurst #4 was pretty well hacked up when Fazio got there.  There was very little evidence of Ross before the Fazio redesign.

Was Ross a perfect architect?  Of course not.  Could some of his courses have been improved?  Of course.  However, were architects like RTJ and Dick Wilson really the men for the job?  RTJ got lucky on 13 at Oak Hill, but his renovations disrupted or threatened to disrupt great Ross features.  In many cases, he simply removed bunkering that would challenge the better player.  Much of the Oak Hill bunkering was not strategic.  Rather, it highlighted the subtle land features of the Oak Hill property.  As far as greensites go, I do not really know what the original Oak Hill greens were like.  However, it is safe to say that, on the whole, Ross greens prove to be much more interesting and varied than RTJ greens.

The problem is that courses will always change over time.  This is not because golf courses inherently change.  Rather, golf course architecture goes through different fashions.  Features fall out of vogue, and courses seek to make amends, for better or for worse.  Dick Wilson plowed under the Mae West hole at Bel-Air because he thought blind shots had no place in golf.  In the 1920s and in the present day, people are shocked at this notion.  Yet this notion was very reasonable in the 1950s and 1960s.

This discussion is less about golf architecture and more about morality.  Is it right to change classic golf courses?  Is it right in certain eras and wrong in other eras?  Clearly what was considered good in the 1950s-1970s is considered to be heinous now.  My vote?  Whichever design is most natural, presents the best strategy, and is the most fun should prevail.  In the end, does it really matter if it was Donald Ross or Robert Trent Jones who was responsible for the hole?

[Anthony_Nysse]

hmmmmm.
And I don't think RTJ was much into Wilson either.....come to think of it I have never seen any type of article where GCA's are making note of all the other GCA's they love   IMHO Ross became a "real master" after years of very good care and maintenance from clubs and supts.....  

Heres an article from 1962 about RTJ and DW-who would have thought that Dick Wilson's REAL name was Louis Sibbett Wilson!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1073966/index.htm

[JC Jones]

Great article, Tony.  There are all kinds of interesting things in there; a good read.

[Phil_the_Author]

As one who waants to see everything Tilly made protected, what I always find ironic in dicussions of this type is that all seem to have forgotten and never mention just how many courses built by OTHER architects a Ross and Tilly and the other Golden Age greats that THEY had no problem taking apart and redoing to what they thought should be there.

From that perspoective, what RTJ & Wilson and others did (e.g. - Mike Young... just teasing Mikey) is no different than what the architects whose work they are changing did...

[Mike_Young]

As one who waants to see everything Tilly made protected, what I always find ironic in dicussions of this type is that all seem to have forgotten and never mention just how many courses built by OTHER architects a Ross and Tilly and the other Golden Age greats that THEY had no problem taking apart and redoing to what they thought should be there.

From that perspoective, what RTJ & Wilson and others did (e.g. - Mike Young... just teasing Mikey) is no different than what the architects whose work they are changing did...

Phillip,
I been saying this for years on here....and it will always continue as such....
Also....I hold DW in the highest esteem....of the ODG's he is my #1....

[John Shimp]

On Charlotte CC green movements, there are effectively 2 new holes (16 and 17) and therefore new greens and sites.  17 wasn't a ross original anyway nor is the current 18th.  16 was a bad hole in that it was ackward and short off the tee and required a massive fade to stay in play.  It was badly over treed as well. 

The greens that were moved have nothing to do with whether there was "there, there" and are generally the same shape with the same amount of buildup as before.  Two of the ones moved basically just went back on flat land to add distance.  Those were 12 and 14.  Twelve is a long strong 5 that is well guarded around the green.  Fourteen is a short 4.  The new green is bigger and less severe than the old.  Holes 4 and 13 were moved to change the way the holes played somewhat.  Four is a long par 4 and was moved left up a hill. The new and old greens on 4 are/were tough.  The new is an improvement in my view but has a valley in the middle that perplexes some people who play the hole.  13 is also a long par 4 that requires a creek carry on the approach.  The old green was rididculous -- hard up against the creek with silly bunkering.  A go no go second from 200 yds off a downhill lie with tree trouble on both sides, bunkers, and a creek to fly made the hole silly hard in all the wrong ways.  Prichard has softened the approach by moving the green back about ten yds and allowing a well hit straight ball to jump up onto the green as opposed to having to fly it on necessarily.  He has also removed all bunkers on the hole and removed trees from the right side of the green so that there is a bit of a bail out there.  The hole is 475 yds and is really in that it makes you think about whether you want to go for the green in 2 off the downhill lie from way back.  A 4 can be made short of the creek as the green isn't so wild as to be hard to place a pitch shot.  18 was also moved to the right to save a beautiful large oak and to allow more access to the green from all sides of the fairway.  The new green is interesting to say the least but the old wasn't bad just poorly placed.

As far as deciding what was left by Ross at Charlotte, you'd really have to look at the 1938 aerial photo that instructed Ron Prichard and members of the club involved with the redo.  I will say that you see a long, well bunkered (greater than 100) course with interesting green shapes and bunker placements.  You also see that today's routing and green placement looks similar with the exception of holes 16-18 which are basically new (17-18 moved to accomodate a range/practice area).

[Jim_Kennedy]

If I'm correct in my understanding of your sentence you are saying that no one jumps all over any of the ODGs for doing what RTJ and DW had done, i.e. redoing courses.

There's probably one very good reason for that, much of what they overwrote was pretty rudimentary stuff built by the same early architects that have been discussed and written about here on this site.  Now, I'm sure you'll be able to present examples to the contrary, but no matter, there is a difference that must be recognized if you're going to fairly say what you did in your post.

...and by the way, no one is ripping on RTJ or DW or any other architect for the sympathetic work they performed, only the pathetic.

p.s. I've played courses from both men, multiple times, and always enjoyed their work.

[Jim_Kennedy]

John,
Thanks for that input, it was surprising to read that Ron Prichard chose to move seven of Donald Ross' greens and it was a line from the "Best New Remodel" article saying it was enough to "...make a Ross devotee wince" that made me ask the question.

[Tom_Doak]

Gentlemen:

I suspect that a lot of Trent Jones' changes to these old courses were driven by the members' input.  If the greens had physical problems or the members wanted to "improve" or "toughen" the course, he would blow the greens up without hesitation; but I suspect the members of Oakland Hills and Oak Hill tied his hands a bit.  [Remember, too, that he grew up around Rochester, and probably had a healthy respect for Oak Hill from the beginning.]

One course that hasn't been mentioned is the CC of Birmingham, Alabama.  They had 36 Ross greens and blew them all up ... Trent Jones did one course and George Cobb the other.  When I worked for Pete Dye he was going to "restore" the Ross greens on the West course, but then they turned him loose and he blew up the Jones greens and built his own!

In all the restoration / renovation work we've done [apart from Atlantic City CC where the marching orders were to make major changes], I have only moved ONE green ... the eighth at Cherry Hills.  It was a long, flat par 3 hole and the green was in the way of new tees for #9 and #16 which they lusted after, so we agreed to move it back, promising to replicate the contours of the original green exactly.  Which we did.

In hindsight, that was a silly thing to do.  That is the most boring hole on the course, and I had four guys on site who could have shaped a better green in their sleep.  We could easily have built something better there, and we should have, but there was so much political tension in getting the project approved that it was just easier to say we would replicate the green exactly, and not have to explain what else we could do.

Flynn's original plan for the hole did have a little bunker 40 yards short of the green on the open side, on this 250-yard par 3, which might have made the hole a bit more interesting, too ... but no one on the committee wanted to consider putting a feature like that back into play.  Even if we had, though, the green is still uninspired.  In fact, there were three greens on that course that looked like they'd let a novice shaper practice on them, they just don't have the movement or sophistication of the rest.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()