Interview with Bill Love - Olympic Club and more

[Jay Flemma]

http://jayflemma.thegolfspace.com/?p=4372

My favorite part:

JF: Who are you older favorite designers?

BL: I’m pretty partial to Mackenzie – I like his philosophy on working with terrain. Plus he got great sites and made the most of them. His greens and his bunkering were something else – not only to look at, but to play!

Isn’t it fascinating to look back on these architects and the sites they got, and you see how the mark of the great architects is in how they could make the most out of the land they got and make a truly great course out of it. I’m envious when I see how they could discover such interesting features in each course, bring it to fruition, and make it seem unique and special. They’d walk the landscape endlessly and connect with the property to understand the spirit of the place and the inherent nature and character of the land. Every property is unique and you have to bring out the best character of every site and enhance it through the design of the golf course. That’s the greatest thing about golf – you can go all around the world and play the greatest courses in the world, and they all have that “statement of place.”

I also like Tillinghast, Seth Raynor, and Donald Ross for the same reason. Take Bellport Country Club in the village of Bellport, Long Island for example. It’s an old Seth Raynor course on the south shore. The club dates from 1899 and I think the course was built maybe around 1921? It runs right out to the water, but they had to redo three holes to bring them up out of a marsh and do some shoreline stabilization. So Trent Jones, Sr. built three holes right on the ocean, but they weren’t in the flavor of Raynor, they were in Jones’s style and they were good holes, but they didn’t fit with the rest of the course and everyone knew it. So when I did a master plan in 2002 and suggested they redo those holes in the flavor of Raynor so they match the rest of the course, they agreed.

The Jones greens were fine, but we wanted to add Raynor features and strategies, so we redid all the bunkering, not the greens. We loved trying to emulate the bunkering work of Raynor and blending everything the best we could. We added long narrow bunkers with berming on one side, and some geometric bunkers and some rectilinear tees too. The tee boxes needed enlarging.

I remember one great hole, 17, where I’m going around with the super and we get to that green and it’s a bowl with a berm in front had chocolate drop mounds in front hiding it, making it blind.

JF: So it’s an Alps Hole?

BL: Yeah! So we were duplicating really interesting and bold things like that, or square bunkers, or anything Raynor would have done. We even did some chocolate drops.

But my favorite memory was turning to the super and telling him, “if I ever built this on an original design or suggested it to the membership of some private club that knew nothing about Raynor, they’d fire me!”

Bob Furchert was his name, and he laughed so hard after I said it, because he knew it was true. But it wasn’t unusual to him, he’s been there a long time. We are so pre-conditioned about maintenance – for the most part, not always, but often – I marvel at and admire his ability to have the members so in tune to what he was doing.

When you get the opportunity to build over the work of a great Golden Age architect: that’s one of the most gratifying moments of an architect’s life. So you take care to really be true to that architect and make your work look like it’s been there since the beginning of the golf course.

[John Kavanaugh]

Thanks Jay!!! One of the great things about GCA, given the current lack in new courses being built, is that so many fine writers now link their spoils to this site.  It takes the goo out of Google.  Keep up the great work!!!

[Joel_Stewart]

You're kidding?  It doesn't say anything.

Here is how it should have gone.

Q. How may classics have you restored?
A. None

Q. You've been in building courses over 40 years.  How many courses are in any top 100 list?
A. 0

Q. How did you get the job at Olympic?
A. I've known the super for 25 years and he went around the green committees back and hired me over Gil Hanse, Mike Devries and others.

Q. How much are you being paid?
A. Thats confidential.  Nobody at Olympic even knows except the superintendent.  LOL, but it's a lot.

Q. Regarding cutting down 600 trees, how did you decide on those trees.
A. I wasn't there.  Most were cut down before I became involved.

[John Kavanaugh]

You're kidding?  It doesn't say anything.

Here is how it should have gone.

Q. How may classics have you restored?
A. None

Q. You've been in building courses over 40 years.  How many courses are in any top 100 list?
A. 0

Q. How did you get the job at Olympic?
A. I've known the super for 25 years and he went around the green committees back and hired me over Gil Hanse, Mike Devries and others.

Q. How much are you being paid?
A. Thats confidential.  Nobody at Olympic even knows except the superintendent.  LOL, but it's a lot.

Q. Regarding cutting down 600 trees, how did you decide on those trees.
A. I wasn't there.  Most were cut down before I became involved.

Joel,

Your commentary on Olympic is the freshest most honest on this site.  I love every word.  Jay is a professional journalist and thus does not have the liberties of us common bloggers.  None of the faults you see lay at his feet.

[Joel_Stewart]

John:  Olympic is like no other club in the US except maybe Augusta for the shennagins.  With 8,000 members it's a mad house.  As another member says, it's run by the sisterhood of Nancy Pelosi.  People think I make this up, but it's impossible.

Here is my mock 2nd part.

Q. The old 7th was named in George Pepers book as one of the top 500 holes in the world but you bulldozed it, why?
A. The superintendent didn't like it.  I do what I'm told.

Q. The club provided you with 600 classic photos, what did you determine?
A. Not much. The bunkers had moved.

Q. RTJ Sr and others filled in dozens of bunkers throughout the years.  How many did you restore?
A. 0

Q. Olympic is built in sand yet you decided to build USGA spec greens in sand. Why?
A. I'm use to working in clay and never built push up greens and didn't know how so I went with USGA spec.

Q. So they didn't have a drainage problem but you dug up a sand base for USGA spec greens.
A. Yep.

Q. Whats next for you?
A. The money train is still alive at Olympic so now they are using me to rebuild the Ocean course.  

Q.  You are a past president of the ASGCA.  How did you get that job?
A. It's not what you know but who you know.

Q. What did you accomplish?
A. LOL, nothing.  Does the ASGCA ever accomplish anything?

[Chip Gaskins]

This is going to be a fun one guys!

Joel has consistently been transparent on his love for Olympic as well as the backroom deals that has led to what is in the ground now near John Daly Ave.

I have grown to love Olympic, even though it is relentlessly hard and sometimes not that fun....but one could only imagine what it would be like if it had the tender loving care of a Coore & Crenshaw restoration (Pinehurst #2) or the guidance of a Gil Hanse or Mike Devries!

With all that said, sounds like Mike Davis has the unilateral ability to install a new fairway bunker (though I like his thought process) where the USGA see fit.  The lovely club politics of hosting a US Open.

[David_Tepper]

Joel Stewart's enmity toward the Olympic Club is no secret to the regular participants here. While he can and does express his views freely, it would be a mistake to regard his views, in all cases, as the final authority or the gospel regarding events that have transpired over the years at the Olympic Club.

I find the notion of "restoring" the Lake Course curious. Restore it to what? The Lake Course was changed/altered several times prior to WWII. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe the Lake Course ever had a notable architectural pedigree/identity or was ever held in the same high esteem as "Golden Age" greats such as Cypress Point, Seminole, NGLA, Pinehurst #2, etc. In fact, prior to WWII, the Ocean Course was, for several years, regarded as the feature course on the property.

There cannot be more than a handful of people still alive who have ever played or have even seen the Lake Course prior to RT Jones' work on the course before the 1955 US Open. The fact of the matter is the course's entire identity (soon to host its 5th US Open, 3 US Amateurs, 1 USGA Junior, 2 Tour Championships, etc.) is inextricably tied to how the course has looked and played from 1955 to the present.

While it is strictly a guess on my part, I suspect the interest among the club's membership to restoring the course to effectively be zero.        
With regards to the stewardship of the OC courses under its present superintendent, it should be noted that the club is about to host its 3rd USGA Championship in the past 10 years. Clearly there are knowledgeable, capable people in the world of golf who think he is doing a very good job.    

[Jay Flemma]

I'll just add this:  When measured against OHCC, WFW, and Oakmont, I thought I'd be underwhelmed.  But after studying it and interviewing a lot of folks (Davis, Spander, Love, and others), I'm having a great time reading and writing about it.  I think we'll have a great tournament, which is the most important thing right now.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

I find the notion of "restoring" the Lake Course curious. Restore it to what? The Lake Course was changed/altered several times prior to WWII. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe the Lake Course ever had a notable architectural pedigree/identity or was ever held in the same high esteem as "Golden Age" greats such as Cypress Point, Seminole, NGLA, Pinehurst #2, etc. In fact, prior to WWII, the Ocean Course was, for several years, regarded as the feature course on the property.

There cannot be more than a handful of people still alive who have ever played or have even seen the Lake Course prior to RT Jones' work on the course before the 1955 US Open. The fact of the matter is the course's entire identity (soon to host its 5th US Open, 3 US Amateurs, 1 USGA Junior, 2 Tour Championships, etc.) is inextricably tied to how the course has looked and played from 1955 to the present.

There's obviously been much restoration and renovation work to the classics (i.e. Ross, Tillinghast, Thomas, etc.) over the last decade plus.  How about to RTJ courses?  Is anyone becoming an RTJ expert (a la Ron Prichard or Kris Spence are with Donald Ross) with the plans of restoring to his design visions?  Courses like Olympic-Lake, which if you take David's view, might be seen as an "RTJ" course (which is really the course that the world has come to know), as well as others like Old Warson and Bellerive? 

And, is he enough of an auteur that his courses... his designs... are worth restoring/renovating? 

[JNC Lyon]

Sort of like interviewing George Fazio before the 1980 PGA Championship…

Having not seen Olympic, but knowing the respect that many had for the old 7th and 8th holes, I sympathize with Joel Stewart's views here.

[Joel_Stewart]

Dave:  I think there is a large faction of members who take my view that a restoration is in order.  I try not to be a sheep and just follow.  I’m just trying to explain from an inside view how things work at Olympic.  With that said,  I’m having too much fun to let you rain on the parade.  I will say that my fundamental problem with Olympic is two fold.  You have a rogue superintendent who does whatever he wants and has in my mind ruined the course.  Secondly and most important, Olympic is a fraction of what it could be.  To answer your question, if you take the time to walk into the locker room and look at the old photos, the character and playability of the course was far superior at any time prior to RTJ Sr. work.  You can pick just about any year prior to 1966 or even 1955.  

More from my mock interview:

Q. Olympic has fallen from 10th to 32nd on Golf Digest top 100.  How do explain this?
A. The superintendent and myself prefer the Butler National, Cog Hill, and Medinah modernization model, and that is to modernize the course out of existence making it unplayable.  My good friend and past president of the ASGCA Rees Jones destroyed Cog Hill and Medinah and I’m trying to follow his lead at Olympic.  I think we have accomplished our goal.

Q. And Cog Hill and Butler have fallen out of the top 100?
A. Exactly.  Some fine work there by Rees and Faz although I have never seen it.

Q. You’ve been touting environmental aspects and low cost maintenance on golf courses. You also won an award for “Most Environmentally Sensitive Architecture Firm”  yet Olympic spent millions on it’s recent changes, you built new tees on a dozen holes that can only be used by tour pro’s, the course uses huge amounts of water,  has bunkers that are not natural in form with imported white sand and is one of the most expensive courses to maintain. Furthermore the non accompanied guest fees are $300. How is that environmentally sensative and affordable?
A. Thank you.

Q.  Could you elaborate on how you got this job?
A. Yes, Olympic had an architect selection committee made up of 3 members of the green committee.  After interviewing several candidates, they selected Mike Devries.  Devries had worked on a course I’ve never heard of in the Bay Area called the Meadow Club built by MacKenzie and is one of these hands on architects who insisted on doing the shaping himself. LOL, what an idiot!  The superintendent who has no experience in shaping insisted he do the shaping as opposed to using a professional shaper.  So Devries was fired before he started and I was brought in to draw pretty pictures and shake a few hands.

Q. And how was your interview with the selection committee?
A. I never interviewed.  As I told you I was just hired by my good friend the superintendent.  The super pulled the wool over the head of the board saying “he needed to have a good relationship with the architect” and what could be better than me getting a fat paycheck and just drawing some pictures.

Q. The USGA just added a new bunker on the 17th hole in a perfect layup spot.  Your thoughts?
A. I wish I thought of it and the USGA didn’t consult me.  They don't pay me to think.

[David_Tepper]

"Having not seen Olympic, but knowing the respect that many had for the old 7th and 8th holes"

JNC Lyon -

Had you ever played the Lake Course, I doubt you would be mourning the passing of the 8th hole. It was a 130-150 yard uphill par-3 to a totally blind green fronted by a yawning bunker.

It was 1 of 3 blind par-3's on the course, which I have always thought was a design weakness. In theory, one could have 3 holes-in-one in a single round but not see any of them actually drop into the cup. Isn't 99% of the thrill of making an ace the chance to see the ball disappear?

If nothing else, the new 8th does allow much of the green surface to be seen from the tee, even though it is still an uphill shot. That in itself is a big improvement.

DT 
 

[Joel_Stewart]

Dave.  You need to have vision, something Bill Love and especially Pat Finlen have none of.

Take a look at the spectacular bunkering on the old 8th hole.  The back bunker which I call a figure 8 is one of the great bunkers in America.  The bunker on the left was also unbelievable.  I believe the green was a biarritz but others just think it had a swale in the middle.  To me, if Bill Love or Finlen restored this hole, with that type of classic bunkering, they would be heros in the golf world.  The course would regain it's lofty spot as one of the great courses in the world.



But no.  You are now touting a long uphill semi blind par 3 with crap bunkering, which looks like any other Rees Jones hole built in 2010 on a 1927 golf course?

[Dan King]

Au contrair, mon ami, I loved the old 8th. Holes in ones are rare,  Wishing for a hole in one is common. With the old 8th, if you hit a decent shot, you walked up to the green with the hope you were in the hole or close. Almost all the time you were disappointed, but the feeling walking up there after a good shot was always fun.

The secret to a good blind par-3 is that the hole needs to be short and reasonably easy and I like fairly large greens. The 8th at Olympic had all these features.

Cheers,
Dan King

For every theory ye propose about the improvement o' the game, I'll show ye how the game is fadin' away, losin' its old charm, becomin' mechanzied by the Americans and the rest o' the world that blindly follows them. 
 --Julian Lang

[jeffwarne]

Au contrair, mon ami, I loved the old 8th. Holes in ones are rare,  Wishing for a hole in one is common. With the old 8th, if you hit a decent shot, you walked up to the green with the hope you were in the hole or close. Almost all the time you were disappointed, but the feeling walking up there after a good shot was always fun.

The secret to a good blind par-3 is that the hole needs to be short and reasonably easy and I like fairly large greens. The 8th at Olympic had all these features.

Cheers,
Dan King

For every theory ye propose about the improvement o' the game, I'll show ye how the game is fadin' away, losin' its old charm, becomin' mechanzied by the Americans and the rest o' the world that blindly follows them. 
 --Julian Lang

+1

[Joel_Stewart]

The old 8th.  What has never been explained, is why they moved this hole?  The superintendent wanted it longer for 1 week in June 2012 and they could not move the tee back any further so he relocated it.  In my almost 20 years of being a member, I never heard one member complain about this hole until Dave Tepper today?

[Jim Nugent]

I find the notion of "restoring" the Lake Course curious. Restore it to what? The Lake Course was changed/altered several times prior to WWII. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe the Lake Course ever had a notable architectural pedigree/identity or was ever held in the same high esteem as "Golden Age" greats such as Cypress Point, Seminole, NGLA, Pinehurst #2, etc. In fact, prior to WWII, the Ocean Course was, for several years, regarded as the feature course on the property.

Restoration questions aside, did the changes made over the past several years turn Olympic into a better course or a worse one?  It's clear where Joel stands on this.  What about you, David?

Never played Olympic, but I walked it from the gallery, as much as the ropes allowed, probably ten times or so during the 1993 and 1994 Tour Championships.  Perhaps my favorite hole was #7.  So I was shocked to learn they were changing it.  Really interested to learn if they improved this already-great hole, and why they felt the need to do a thing to it.  Had it become too short for the pro's?     

One of those two years (probably 1994) I was walking between #7 and #8, when a huge, sustained roar erupted out of the crowd.  Greg Norman had just aced #8.     

[Kyle Henderson]

My 2 cents:

I played The Lake in 2007  and again last year (before and after the current 7th and 8th were built).

I think the previous version of #7 had a better green (more subtle contours working through 3 separate tiers vs the current, more abrupt 2-tier affair).

I didn't think much of the old 8th. As David notes, it was the most blind of a mostly blind set of par 3's and the recovery shots around the green were not particularly compelling. Then again, it did add variety as a short-iron approach shot. A decent hole but no tragic loss, IMHO.

I believe the new 8th is more visually attractive than Joel would indicate.  IMHO there are many examples of unrefined bunker shaping on holes throughout the round and the shaping here is not dramatically inferior to my eye. Conversely, the length of the new 8th is very similar to the 13th and worst of all, players must walk much nearly the entire length of the hole to reach the tee. It really does kill the flow of a walking round.

The best feature of the new 8th is that there is now a grass amphitheater behind it, just as on the nearby 18th. And with the clearing of trees to build the hole, viewing of the proceedings will be much better for patrons during the U.S. Open and for dining members in the decades between major championships.

[Tim Passalacqua]

A couple of positive things that have happened at Olympic over the past few years:

1.  Tree management:  The removal has been very significant.  Not only have a ton of trees been removed, they have been trimmed up as well.  The turf has become much healthier with the extra sunlight and combined with the heavy top dressing, the fairways are firmer than ever.  A nice change from a decade ago.  The tree removal has restored views of the city, Lake Merced, and the course.  The course plays much widerthan it used to and trees do not interfere as they did in the past. 

2.  New bent greens:  The new greens are fantastic.  The contours have not changed.  They are really pure, much better everyday for member play.  (and the pros won't have a chance to complain about bumpy poa, like they always do)

3.  The 15th green:  Weiskopf redid this green in 95 and made it unlike anything on the course.  He expanded it and put some swales on it....weird.  It has been changed.   Smaller, with contours similiar to the rest of the course.  Great correction.

4.  Grass swales on the 7th:  On the right side of the fairway, there were some grass swales that had been added (60s or 70s?) that were very artificial.  They have since been removed and replaced with trees as originally intended.  It looks much better.

As for the new 7th green...I like the change.  It makes you think about the placement of your tee shot more with two tiers on the green.  On the old green, if the pin was on one of the front two tiers, you just had to hit your approach somewhere in the vicinity and it would funnel down to 15 feet for birdie.  Now, if the pin is on the back tier, you really need to make sure you have a nice yardage from the fairway to control your spin.  A little more to think about instead of just ripping a driver off the tee.  I think that is a fine change for a driveable par four with no hazards.

The new 8th hole is a strong golf hole.  My only problem is the walk down to the tee.  The flow is a little different.  Obvously, everyone would prefer it 20 yards off the seventh green.

These are just a few of the good changes at Olympic that have improved the golf course.  I think we wil see a great open there in a few weeks.

[David_Tepper]

Quoting Tom Doak:

"Fairway bunkers are so overrated ... and so many architectural experts seem to think if there is not a fairway bunker to avoid that there is "no strategy"."

[Jay Flemma]

Haven't seen it yet, but will arrive Monday afternoon of Open week, so if any of you want to walk out there with me and show me all the things you are discussing, I'll be glad to check them out.  I'll be more than happy to listen to whatever you want to describe for me, it will be fun to meet you. Heck, maybe we can meet over a burger dog, I'm dying to try one.  When in Rome...

Yes, those old photos of 8 look awesome.  That bunkering looks terrific.  

As for the rest, wouldn't everyone's bile be better directed at the guy who took out the cool bunkers rather than vilifying the guy who was just following orders when he did not put them back in?  This is completely different from the G. Fazio at Oak Hill analogy b/c he bulldozed features out of existence.  Here, the vocal minority seems to be yelling that Love didn't put stuff back in.  They also seem to be yelling b/c he's not C&C or Gil Hanse.  You know, if the same guys did everything, we'd have never heard of Dan Hixson and the like.

And somebody at Oly must be happy with the job love is doing b/c they gave him the other two courses to do too.  If he really was as bad as Joel claims, then why haven't they risen up in protest?  Can't the whole membership control the super? Has the super that much life and death power as to cow 8,000 members?

You make it sound like some grand Machiavellian plot, Joel.  An architectural act of terrorism to destroy and old classic to the slush of money and the glint of gold:)  Calling Rick Shefchik! This sounds like a job for Sam Sparda!

We get it - you hate it.  But why do you have to spoil everyone else's fun?  Don't you agree that it will be a great host for the Open? Is it wrong for the rest of us to be looking forward to a great, wide-open U.S. Open on a course that doesn't seem to favor bomb and gouge? A course where technology is still cowed by the design of the natural terrain?  A course where the most skillful player that week seems to win?  A course where every single time the Open is played there, someone makes birdies down the stretch to win?  A course where the 350 yards closer - seemingly puny - is still as close to a "miracle birdie" as a hole can get?

Is t possible you underestimate your own course?

From what I've seen, read, and learned from interviews, this year's Oly seems to be the best architecturally we'll have seen Oly in a while. Dies that seem fair to say?

[Tim Passalacqua]

To add to the fairway bunker topic: Sam Whiting originally placed the fairway bunkers to seperate the holes and give them some definition until the trees grew.  It makes sense that there is only one, presently. 

[David_Tepper]

Dan K. & Jeff W. -

I have nothing against blind shots/blind holes. One could argue that, on a course as "straightforward" as the Lake, a little quirk is a good thing.

On the other hand, I had always thought having blind shots on 3 of the 4 par-3's there as a bit much.  One of the joys of a well struck shot on a par-3 is watching it land, possibly threaten the hole and maybe roll in every once in a while. All the players in a 4-ball can enjoy those moments, whereas the "wonder" of where a ball ended up on a blind par-3 is pretty much the concern of just the person who hit the shot.

I was also there the day Greg Norman aced the old #8 in the Tour Championship. Yes, the crowd roared and enjoyed it. Too bad the players and their caddies on the tee could not see what was going on.

DT
 

[DMoriarty]

Joel Stewart,

Thanks for your intelligent commentary on Olympic.  By your description and even by Flemma's, Bill Love sounds more like a "Yes" man than a architect worth honoring and praising.  At least on this project.

Flemma asks you why you have to spoil everyone else's fun?  He ought to review the home page, where Ran calls for frank commentary on the world's great courses.  Yours is just such frank commentary.   While I personally don't understand how Flemma's infomercials qualify as frank commentary, I suppose some others might think there is room even for Flemma's puffery.  But for him scold you for your honest and informed commentary in the same thread as he self-promotes yet another toothless, softball interview about a course he even hasn't seen?  Too much.

David Tepper,

I appreciate your comments as well, but I am not persuaded.  I've never studied Olympic much, but I have looked at it enough to understand that there has been plenty of tinkering over the years. But I also understand that there is a solid record of what was there since the very beginning. Even plans, maps, and aerials.  When it comes to restoring old courses there are always limitations and compromises, but courses have been successfully restored with much less.

As for your comments on the eighth, I understand you have a personal preference for visibility. Others liked the old hole. But aren't there larger questions at issue here other than just your personal preferences vs. someone else's?  According to Joel, there was never any sort of universal condemnation of the old hole by the membership.  Do you agree with this?  If so, why change the hole?  According to Joel, they moved the hole just so they could it longer for the Open.  Is this the case?  Assuming this is the case, does this make sense to you?   Does it make sense for a course to bulldoze an acceptable hole to enhance the scorecard for one tournament held at Olympic once a decade?  

[Dan King]

David Tepper writes:
On the other hand, I had always thought having blind shots on 3 of the 4 par-3's there as a bit much.

Confession time: I don't think I've played Olympic Lake this century. I figure I have played the course around a dozen times, and I'm having trouble remembering much about the par-3s. I remember the first par-3 being a long one -- I don't remember it being blind. I remember the 8th and it being completely blind. I know there is one down by the lake, and I seem to recall parts of the green being blind.  I've been trying to remember the fourth, but it isn't coming to me.  Which of the four par-3s are you saying wasn't blind?  

I don't remember ever thinking there was excessive blind shots, but then I don't have the problem with blind shots others seem to have.

I'm not in the least bit concerned that Greg Norman didn't see his ace go in the hole. My guess is that it is a bigger deal to you than it was to Greg.

Cheers,
Dan King
For those of you who don't like blind:

There may be a certain amount of pleasurable excitement in running up to the top of a hillock in the hope of seeing your ball near the flag, but this kind of thing one gets tired of as one grows older.
 --Dr. Alister MacKenzie (on blind shots)