Inverness Club profile is posted ...

[Ran Morrissett]

... under Architecture Timeline and Courses by Country.

As we all know, golf’s trump cards are its ever-changing playing fields. How lucky we are that this is our chosen sport! That fact is highlighted by the back-to-back profiles of Castle Stuart (near Inverness) and Inverness (near Toledo). One set of fairways is about double the width of the other and the greens almost 50% larger. Yet golf excels at both!
 
Traditional clubs like Inverness often undertake work without generating or seeking attention. The flip side is that the club might not get the recognition that it deserves for successful change and I have noticed only periodic mention of Inverness’s 2013 work and conversion to Pure Distinction in this Discussion Group. If you haven’t yet played on this surface (not many places offer it), you are in for a treat. The greens are now in the class of Prairie Dunes – intermediate in size and yet 3 putts happen in a jiff. The interior contours aren’t big (or easy to photograph) but wavy Ross contours + Pure Distinction = golf the way it was meant to be (to paraphrase Ross expert Mike Fay). The putting surfaces at holes like 4, 9 and 16 are marvelous and their appeal grows with time, especially when compared against some of the sledge-hammer, three tier greens jammed onto the land in modern times. 
 
Similar to Southern Hills, Inverness occupies a much prettier block of property than what people can glean from television. Some of that is due to the tree work that was begun after Inverness’s last big event, the 2011 Senior Open. Let’s hope that they stay the course. Evergreens that dot the hill left along 7 and those on the inside of the 8th obscure great long interior views and hinder an even better appreciation of the land.


This aerial from Chris Buie shows Inverness’s appealing river valley and how Ross used it. His 6th and dogleg left 7th are along the bottom and right.
 
Inverness’s predominance of par 4s might remind some of Ganton but the appeal of this place for me is that it doesn’t really resemble any other course in the world, save itself. The star holes – 4, 7, 15, 17, and 18 – shine with mega-wattage (at least to me) and seem unique even within Ross’s own massive portfolio. The course starts with a shared ‘V’ fairway, ends with a sub-380 yarder and there’s a bunch of wonders in between –  tell me another place quite like it?

Best,

[Jason Way]

Great stuff Ran - words and pictures.  What a beautiful piece of property, and routing around it.

Does my memory serve that there are mounded-earth bunkers at Skokie CC of the style you described here? Seeing your pictures rings a bell.  They are a neat feature.

After reading this profile, I cannot wait to get Inverness checked off my US Open venues list. 

[Daniel Jones]

Great piece, Ran... Ironically, I just read that passage from Ross on fan shaped property yesterday in Golf Has Never Failed Me. Plenty to please the eye here, especially that approach to the 15th.

[Jeff_Mingay]

The variety of bunkers in the historic aerial above - sizes, shapes, locations, etc. - is awesome.

[David Kelly]

I played on the new Pure Distinction surface this past September and it was really good although the greens were so fast a few of them (17 & 18) in particular were almost unputtable. 

The 4 and 5 pars are very strong but Inverness may have the weakest set of Par 3s of any top 100 course in the USA.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I guess I've played Inverness a half dozen times over the years.  It was one of the very first "great" courses my son ever played so it has a special place in my memory.  Yet, while it is a course I respect I have little affection for it. I never really relished play there.  I'm not sure why that is because it is a very good course, just not one I would like to play on a daily basis.

[Joe Zucker]

I guess I've played Inverness a half dozen times over the years.  It was one of the very first "great" courses my son ever played so it has a special place in my memory.  Yet, while it is a course I respect I have little affection for it. I never really relished play there.  I'm not sure why that is because it is a very good course, just not one I would like to play on a daily basis.

I've had that feeling before.  Not at Inverness, but at other courses, Erin Hills comes to mind.  The course is good and you can see the architectural merit, but it doesn't strike a fire inside of you.  But that's why golf is great, we can all find passion in different places.

[Chris Roselle]

Inverness has just be selected to host the 2019 USGA Junior Amateur Championship...

http://www.usga.org/news/2014/December/Inverness-Club-to-Host-2019-U-S--Junior-Am/

[BCowan]

Ran,

   Your write up was very impressive.  You did an exceptional job in including Nichols and SP Jermain in the review.  I think that #6 1 of the 4 Fazio holes and since modified in 99' has the most Ross characteristics of the 4.  What makes Inverness special is how well contoured the small greens are.  They offer many pin placements and make one think if big greens are not really needed to make special greens.  Examples would be the 2nd, 10th, 14, and 18th greens.  Personally #14 is my favorite hole on the course.  The chute which was created by the tee pre 99' made for a unique tee shot.  The long bunker on the left was extended in 99' with a suggestion by a member.  The bunker influences the shape off the tee.  For a long hole it offers a ground game, pretty much mandatory for even the best golfers.  The green is very small for a long hole and you have a very undulating green with a mound somewhat in the middle of the green.  The hole often gets overlooked for not the eye candy that others posses. 

    Inverness history is 2nd to none imo.  If I recall Byron Nelson edged out Ben Hogan for the head pro job.  Now that is pretty special.  The gentlemen who taught me to play the game was asst. under Byron and later became the Head pro, retiring at the end of 79'.  It takes a learning curve to get Inverness.  Art Hills was a member of the course I grew up at, and I recall having a conversation with him about that same subject.  Many people who first play Inverness think that it is overrated.  It takes some time to actually ''Get It'' as to appreciate how darn good it is.  I only wish that I'd had the opportunity to play the original routing.  Hopefully some day they will go back to the original routing.  I'm just curious if the quirk can be replicated.

   I will tell you that the ''Gentle handshake'' most of us enjoy is as good as it get imo at Inverness.  #1 and #2, #10 and #11 are fabulous in that account.  Lastly I am curious as to what SP Jermain would think of the modern day Inverness in many accounts.  Ran, thanks for your write up, your writing is getting better and better as the years go on. 

[Andy Troeger]

I guess I've played Inverness a half dozen times over the years.  It was one of the very first "great" courses my son ever played so it has a special place in my memory.  Yet, while it is a course I respect I have little affection for it. I never really relished play there.  I'm not sure why that is because it is a very good course, just not one I would like to play on a daily basis.

I feel the same as Tommy. I respect the history and really liked that #1/#10 opening complex, but the parallel holes are really apparent and I don't think those holes compare favorably to the best courses. I liked the front, even the new holes, better than the back. Granted, a lot of that is that #4 and #7 are incredible and the two best holes on the course IMO.

[BCowan]

I guess I've played Inverness a half dozen times over the years.  It was one of the very first "great" courses my son ever played so it has a special place in my memory.  Yet, while it is a course I respect I have little affection for it. I never really relished play there.  I'm not sure why that is because it is a very good course, just not one I would like to play on a daily basis.

I feel the same as Tommy. I respect the history and really liked that #1/#10 opening complex, but the parallel holes are really apparent and I don't think those holes compare favorably to the best courses. I liked the front, even the new holes, better than the back. Granted, a lot of that is that #4 and #7 are incredible and the two best holes on the course IMO.

Andy,

    Many locals criticize the original holes on the back 13-17 go back and forth.  The original design had a short par 3 behind present day par 5 13th green and 14 tee.  The holes that go back and forth 13-17 are all very unique.  On #3 and #5, Fazio copied himself, the greens are exactly the same.  They actually removed the pond to the right of #5 green around 97'ish because it was exactly the same as #3.  Who cares if holes go back and forth on the back?  As long as they are interesting.  14-17 is the gauntlet, with #16 being an easier par 4 than the other 3.  With 10-13 being easy and 18 being somewhat easy, Ross used the limited amount of land incredibly.  Present day #12 was originally #3.  #17 is a great dog leg left, with a great green sloping back to front.   #15 is a beautiful hole with great movement in the landing area off the tee.  How many times have you played it?  There are only 5 original holes on the front nine.  Just give it another try, remember the gauntlet isn't suppose to be easy, It is a US Open course.  The holes are very unique, they just go North and south, big deal.   

[Andy Troeger]

Ben,
Those holes are not that unique. They aren't the same hole, in the way that #2 and #11 might as well be, but they also aren't so great that they create much inspiration. I played the course and those holes very well by my standards, and I credit the course for being a good members course on a regular basis and also a good test for the pros. I just don't think it is particularly memorable, especially for a guest who isn't playing it regularly. I also don't think crossing the creek in the middle of most of the holes is a particularly interesting. That may not be a big deal to you.

Truth be told, I usually don't get the love for Ross. I like a few of his courses on very rolling terrain, like French Lick and Winchester, but his more famous designs sometimes leave me a little underwhelmed. 

[BCowan]

Andy,

    #2 and #11 are not even close to the same/similar, other than they both are parallel and head south.  #11 has an elongated green with the left bunker built into the green creating a bowl like feature.  The green also runs away from the player.  #2 green has many internal contours and has spots that are crowned.  The only similarity would be the cross bunker on the right off the tee, which can be avoided on #2 with a driver, where #11 is a forced layup for the most part.
   I hardly consider the course a good members course, very difficult for the average golfer.  The beauty of the short par 5 13th hole, is if one misses the heavily contoured fairway off the tee and have a tough lie in the rough, that 3 yard wide creek comes into play.  It is simple brilliance with numerous options.  Inverness land isn't top notch, it is prob average land for an inland course, but it has brilliant nuances which get overlooked.   

[Andy Troeger]

Andy,

    #2 and #11 are not even close to the same/similar, other than they both are parallel and head south.  #11 has an elongated green with the left bunker built into the green creating a bowl like feature.  The green also runs away from the player.  #2 green has many internal contours and has spots that are crowned.  The only similarity would be the cross bunker on the right off the tee, which can be avoided on #2 with a driver, where #11 is a forced layup for the most part.

So two par fours both around 370-380 yards going in the same direction with cross bunkers on the right off the tee aren't even close to similar? They both have greenside bunkers short-right too. I've seen replica attempts with less similarity. The greens do have their differences.

[BCowan]

Andy,

    #2 and #11 are not even close to the same/similar, other than they both are parallel and head south.  #11 has an elongated green with the left bunker built into the green creating a bowl like feature.  The green also runs away from the player.  #2 green has many internal contours and has spots that are crowned.  The only similarity would be the cross bunker on the right off the tee, which can be avoided on #2 with a driver, where #11 is a forced layup for the most part.

So two par fours both around 370-380 yards going in the same direction with cross bunkers on the right off the tee aren't even close to similar? They both have greenside bunkers short-right too. I've seen replica attempts with less similarity. The greens do have their differences.

#2 greenside bunker is right in front.  #11 doesn't have greenside bunker fronting the green.  #11 is blind tee shot, #2 you can see everything right in front of you and you can take on the cross bunker. 

[Andy Troeger]

Ben,
Yes, the holes have subtle nuances that are different, although I'm looking at photos and don't entirely see the same thing you describe. Perhaps its semantics.

Ran describes them as cousins, which is probably fair.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

This profile needs to be revised in light of Andrew Green's recent work as referenced in Brad Klein's recently published article
 "Inverness renovation marks a turning point in golf architecture history"


https://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/inverness-renovation-donald-ross-17775.htm#.WxB2Mnz-dSY.twitter

[Cal Seifert]

Love the quote by Weiskopf during the 79 open in that article

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Now that the course has been stretched to 7700y, is a major in the future?





[/size]http://www.toledoblade.com/DavidBriggs/2018/06/01/With-endorsement-from-pros-Inverness-major-championship-momentum-builds.html[size=78%]

[Cal Seifert]

I would love to see Inverness get another major. Among membership the idea of getting one was probably the big influencer to vote yes.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Andrew Green's work on the 18th hole:

[Tom Bacsanyi]

^^^^Looks awesome.  Hopefully we can get someone in there to do an updated profile. 

[Tom_Doak]

Andrew Green's work on the 18th hole:

I'm just curious what, if anything, was changed in the above photo, other than taking the green out to the edges of the pad.


Considering there are several completely new holes, it just doesn't seem like this is the best example of the work.


Personally, I'm excited to see it, though I am having trouble reconciling "the soul of Inverness" and "7,700 yards" in the same sentence.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

@ Tom Doak


If you read Brad Klein's article in post #16 above, you will see these:


New 3rd hole



New 4th hole



New 5th hole

[Jeff Bergeron]

I applaud the membership for getting this done! Hopefully the naysayers at Oakland Hills  50 miles north, will see the errors of their ways and approve a similar return to Ross.