Was William Gordon jealous of Macdonald/Raynor or just disagreed with their M.O.

[ChipOat]

I was struck by Bill Brightly's description in his Road Hole thread about what Gordon REMOVED from the original Banks design at Hackensack.

Gordon may not be my favorite architect of all time, but he did a very good job with the new Meadowbrook, IMO.  Also, the new Deepdale is quite good considering the difficult piece of property he was given - especially on the front nine.

If memory serves, he also did Stanwich, which has always been a fine layout and, now that the greens are puttable (except for #9), is a worthy challenge for any championship.  I suspect his mandate from the founding members was to build the hardest golf course for miles around (think "harder than Winged Foot"), so I forgive him for the original green contours.  Half of them were impossible to putt from the start when the Stimp was probably around 8+.

The point of this is that he, basically, "ruined"?? Hackensack in 1960 by "de-Banksing" everything that he could.

Why?  Pride?  The need to differentiate himself?  His belief that Macdonald/Raynor/Banks was old fashioned?  He preferred the aerial game?

It was 1960, after all and green was "in" while "firm and fast" was a relic.  Also, clubs were planting trees in those days instead of recognizing the need for light and air circulation.

Perhaps the commercial reality was that clubs wanted a Meadowbrook or a Stanwich and almost nobody appreciated NGLA, Shinnecock, Piping Rock, The Creek, Garden City, etc.

Any thoughts?

[Tim Martin]

I was struck by Bill Brightly's description in his Road Hole thread about what Gordon REMOVED from the original Banks design at Hackensack.

Gordon may not be my favorite architect of all time, but he did a very good job with the new Meadowbrook, IMO.  Also, the new Deepdale is quite good considering the difficult piece of property he was given - especially on the front nine.

If memory serves, he also did Stanwich, which has always been a fine layout and, now that the greens are puttable (except for #9), is a worthy challenge for any championship.  I suspect his mandate from the founding members was to build the hardest golf course for miles around (think "harder than Winged Foot"), so I forgive him for the original green contours.  Half of them were impossible to putt from the start when the Stimp was probably around 8+.

The point of this is that he, basically, "ruined"?? Hackensack in 1960 by "de-Banksing" everything that he could.

Why?  Pride?  The need to differentiate himself?  His belief that Macdonald/Raynor/Banks was old fashioned?  He preferred the aerial game?

It was 1960, after all and green was "in" while "firm and fast" was a relic.  Also, clubs were planting trees in those days instead of recognizing the need for light and air circulation.

Perhaps the commercial reality was that clubs wanted a Meadowbrook or a Stanwich and almost nobody appreciated NGLA, Shinnecock, Piping Rock, The Creek, Garden City, etc.

Any thoughts?

ChipOat-I think there is a fine line between hard and unfair/unplayable. That is a knock that had followed Stanwich for many years and although a great club there were plenty of guys that found the golf course just too tough. I can only imagine that these were in fact the marching orders from the founders to make it hard. Even though the 2002 Mid Am final was contested on a raw rainy day the behind the scenes chatter was that at least the golf course wouldn't get away from them in those conditions. That said the renovation that took place in the mid 2000's softened the golf course in a good way making it much more playable. Tough to say what the Gordon's mindset was with Hackensack but you certainly put forth a list of plausible options.

[Bill Brightly]

I don't think Gordon set out to "de-Banks" Hackensack. Rather, I think he simply falls into the Robert Trent Jones school af architects. He liked "bunker front right, bunker front left." His courses were long and absolutely favored the aerial approach. The courses were penal, not strategic. But that is exactly what was "in vogue" at the time.

I once wrote to his son (and design partner) David to ask if he had any old plans of his work at Hackensack but he did not. We exchanged a few emails, and I asked him why he did not put a bunker or the creek behind his Eden hole at Saucon Valley Grace course. I know that William received exact drawings from a surveyor in Scotland and copied the hole at St. Andrews quite faithfully, including the pitch of the green and placement of the Strath, Hill and Shelley bunkers. I was curious because he had MILES of the Saucon Creek to work with. David said "Dad did not believe in bunkers behind greens, he felt that going over a green was enough of a penalty."

It is not fair to say he ruined Hackensack. He raised bunker floors by about four to six feet, but the bunkers were SO deep before, the "after" look probably we still deeper than most in the area. He was hired by our club's "Modernization Committee" and he did exactly what they wanted: he made the course look like all the new courses of that era. Don't forget that his Saucon Valley Grace (1963,) a big, bold, superbly manicured course was top 50 in the US throughout the 1970's. Huge bunkers with white sand flashed up to the green, it was truly state of the art for that period of architecture. He was an excellent router. IMO, he did a great job at Saucon Valley Weyhill, one of the best parkland sites you will ever find.

Of course I am now sick at what was lost, but I understand why. The funny part is that I found all of Gordon's old plans in our club's basement. Our President thought all of this history should be preserved, had the plans and a high quality 1965 overhead photo framed, and now this all hangs in our locker room, JUST 10 FEET FROM MY LOCKER! I have to look at his plans every time I change my shoes.  

[George_Bahto]

Bill, it's likely he was under direction of the club to make ha dramatic change in the course, probably because the members thought the Banks course was too deep, steep etc .....   The usual complaints about  disliked Raynor / Banks designs.

What really surprised me, when you nfirst showed me those plains, was how.incredibly small he made the greens.


Plan 10 feet from your locker?.....  Oh my

Keep up the good work

George