Restoring the Ross out of a golf course - C.C. Asheville

[PCCraig]

Rich knows what he's doing. Looking forward to following the progress.

[Peter Pallotta]

My apologies, Richard. I was wrong. Your post was a good reminder that I need to be more disciplined and choose words with more care. I think (hope) that I usually do, as I know the people's livelihoods are involved. I didn't this time. Sorry.
Peter

[Joe Sponcia]

Richard,

I appreciate your comments regarding Asheville.  Again, without much to go on, it sounds like you are doing the best you can with very little information (no drawings, etc.). 

This comment, at least to me, is most disturbing:

If anyone here wonders why golf architects don't participate fully here, it is threads like these that are accusatory and libelous and just plainly ridiculous for professionals to have to take time out of their day to respond to.  Coupled with the accusation on GCA that I was looking to hire an unpaid intern a few months ago, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone if I never posted again.

But I will and I will be glad to engage in constructive discussions.  The rest of them should be deleted and many of you really need to think about how you want to approach discussions.  Many industry people despise this website because of the behavior and finger-pointing, and more importantly the mis-information.

Folks like Tom Doak, Ian Andrews, Jeff Brauer, Mike Young, Forrest Richardson, and Jeff Mingay DO post and freely discuss their work.  You have posted 229 times.  Tom Doak has posted over twenty-thousand times.  Has it benefited Mr. Doak to post here?  You would have to ask him, but on this board, he somewhat walks on water - and no, I'm not kissing up, I've never met him - he simply responds to nearly every question and has started many, many interesting threads over the years.  I don't know how many times I've seen him post from some remote location and I think to myself, "does it really benefit Tom Doak to do this right now...or is there something better he could do with his time"?  Again, I don't know him from Adam, but the time and information he gives us on this board is really invaluable.  You or me could twist it and say some of it is self-promotion, but I've read enough of his posts over the years to say that he really loves golf architecture and he really wants it to flourish so much so he is willing to speak with us couch-architects on a weekly basis.  If you posted more and you didn't look at it as "time out of your day", who knows, someone may ask you to work on a course you would have never heard needed your help otherwise - just a thought.  I've contacted a few architects on the board personally and told them about a place I thought was looking for an upgrade, I've also had folks contact me and say, "what do you think about so and so's work".


I'll never forget speaking to an architect a few years back, and about 10 minutes in he said, "you're not one of those Golf Club Atlas guys are you" (with not amazing tone)?  Yes, I'm the guy that after my wife goes to bed studies old Ross drawings, Mackenzie routings, and read books like "The perfect golfer", for fun.  No, I'll probably never design a single hole, but neither will 99% on the board, but most of the people I have met either personally, on the phone, or via email LOVE GOLF ARCHITECTURE.  It doesn't mean there aren't some crappy threads.  I've seen them.  I've also seen the board come down on individuals that spout inaccuracies. 

When the golf channel hosts 'Architecture week', I smile.  I know this site probably has a small part in its airing.  When a restoration is done, again I smile, knowing that some loon on the green committee reading the board probably stood his ground and got everyone else convinced that bringing an old classic course back is a worthy cause.   

I don't think any of us really believe we know more than a Professional.  It may sound like it at times, but I believe if you participated more, you might be surprised at the friends you gain.

I wish you the best of luck in Asheville.  I'm sure I'll play it a couple of times per year, so I'm excited about the work being done.

As an aside, I was baffled by the greens at Raleigh.  I'm glad you cleared up that they were done many years ago. 

[Richard_Mandell]

Dear Joe,


Again, generalities are made that don't apply to all.  As I probably made a few in my last post.  Clearly my comments don't apply to you.  I have zero problem taking time out of my day to respond to a constructive post on GCA, and have in the past.  Although my number apparently is 229, I have participated many more times since 2000.  When the website gets a re-boot, our posting numbers go back to zero and that has happened twice in the past decade (I could be wrong on the details so don't quote me on that). Granted, the last re-boot was a while back and I haven't been too active recently.  Frankly, that is because I have a lot of work as well as two kids. 


I doubt the architects you mentioned here (all of which I know well an communicate with) are just looking to benefit professionally from their involvement on GCA and neither do I.  They do it for the love of our craft. But you only mentioned a handful out of about 200 golf architects worldwide.  I do know more contribute to GCA than those you mentioned, but the majority of them do not like GCA, mostly for what I just had to endure, including a few everyone here reveres.  I had dinner a few weeks ago with one of the tops in the business that is very well-liked on GCA and he said he never, ever, visits the site. 


When people make posts such as this one and I am compelled to defend myself, that is when I get angry and resentful about having to take time out of my day.  That is the difference, Joe.  Taking time out of my day to right incorrect comments and defend my professional life. I would love to take time out of my day to discuss great architecture, poor architecture, or anything in between.


Big difference.


I do have many friends I have made here on GCA and many of them know how I am and expressed themselves as such in my defense.  For that, I am grateful.  Many people here on this website have personally engaged with me here and elsewhere and know I am an open book and am always glad to engage, but not in a negative way.  So Joe, if my response is disturbing to you, it should be.

[Joe Sponcia]

Richard,

Hopefully you'll start a new topic with pictures documenting the work on each hole.  We've had many of those throughout the years, my personal favorite was the Philadelphia Cricket Club.  Gib's "In my opinion" piece about the club and an article by Dunlop White got me started reading GCA many years ago.

The documentation (of course) could serve many purposes.  Before and afters have always proven powerful for those of us that have suffered on woefully ignorant Green Committees.  Or who knows, it may inspire a youngster to take up the profession?

I hate to know how many before and afters have been missed because these other 200 you speak of have had a bad experience on what is a near daily read for me.

[Ben Hollerbach]

    Mr. Mandell
Thank you for your reply. I did not mean to offend you with my post and very much hoped this discussion would be about architecture.  I’m glad you are amenable to discussing the project.
One question you could clear up for me before we begin is the number of original greens at CCA.  You stated in the presentation to the membership that “most of the greens are original to 1928.”  and “6 greens have been rebuilt”. The number of 6 greens modified is brought up a number of times in the presentation. In your response yesterday you stated that only 8 greens are original and 10 have been rebuilt.  Which number is correct as these are rather different assertions?
 

[Richard_Mandell]

Ben,

I'll be glad to clarify.  My responses in this thread yesterday reflect the correct number of altered and original greens.  In a long awaited ride around the golf course the day of my presentation with Les Stradley, I was able to learn more about the history of the greens.  It was Lee who shed light on some of my suspicions about a few greens (such as 1 and 16 for instance) and provided the history on the other greens which I mentioned yesterday.

I was unable to change my presentation in time but believe I may have mentioned some of this information verbally that night.

Les was able to give me enough information to try to restore some of the features on some of the greens moving forward that aren't necessarily reflected in the CDs as they had to be done quickly enough to secure permits, which we officially got today.

The first holes we will do are 14, 15, and 16.  By the way, I did propose a bunker in the 15th fairway with the hopes that it will be visible from the lower tees.  Today I confirmed that possibility will not work in the location I  originally preferred, so I may move it to the left side or not put it in at all. 

Why was it in there if I wasn't totally committed to it?  Because once that is budgeted in it is easier to move those funds around or take it out altogether.  Much better approach with a client than asking for more later.  Call it hedging my bet in the name of cost control.


The desire to keep the roll of the fairway intact exactly as is (perfect) will outweigh any added fairway bunker.  In other words, I'm not going to sacrifice the roll of the fairway for a hazard.

Just a little insight of not yet completely formed thoughts on the issue so don't over analyze it.

Again, let me know when you are there and I'll be glad to spend some time with you on a walk through.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Mr. Mandell,


The fairway bunker on the 15th was one of the first unusual changes that stuck out in my mind. I'm glad you've had a second look and am planning accordingly. Especially from the lower tee box, that hole is nearly always played down the left side of the fairway. One of the features I appreciate most about CCA is there are quite a number of elements on the course that need multiple looks to best understand:

• The ideal line off of the first tee is just inside the treeline down the right side. A ball played on this line with a long iron or fairway wood will bound down the hill an additional 60 yards. A ball played towards the middle of the fairway and down the left will land more across the hill and will not run out in the same fashion. Increasing the dogleg off of that tee will force all players to play across the hill and will invoke a much longer approach.

• The lefthand fairway bunker on the second hole acts as an out of bounds catch. Balls struck on that line will notoriously skip through the rough and into the encroaching out of bounds on that side.

• The creek that bisects much of the front 9 is notorious for flooding. A few years back the creek raised out of its banks and destroyed a cement and steel bridge that crosses the creek on the 6th hole. The proposed location of the moved 5th green is less than 20 yards from where the bridge was washed out. That move, along with the shift of the 5th fairway, 7th green and fairway, and the 4th fairway towards the creek concerns me that these areas will become more inclined to significant flooding.

• It was proposed to move the back tee on the 9th hole farther to the right, but the tee box is bordered on the right by the property line.

• The tee shot on the 10th falls over 40 ft. Today this shot is being struck down to a fairway that has a large downslope from ~200 yards to ~230 yards off of the tee. Tee shots that land in this area will kick forward into the area where the creek will bisect the fairway. The long hang time and wind influence on the ball has the potential to make the drive on this hole overly difficult and could effectively remove 60 yards of playable area from the hole.

• The fairway bunker on the 11th hole has been in place for over 25 years. It's placement forces most players to play away from it and closer towards the creek.

• The removal of the trees down the left hand side of the 18th fairway will dramatically widen the driving zone for the longer player and has the potential to remove some of the strategy from that tee shot. Currently the longer player can only play a driver off of the tee if it is flirting with the treeline down the left. A ball lost out to the right has the potential to go through the fairway and out of bounds. The common play is to take a 3 wood and play it towards the middle, with a slight right to left turn. Remove those trees and the longer players will be able to bomb their tee shots down the left, resulting in a wedge approach.

The roll of the fairways is a tremendous asset to the course and something I'm very glad will be preserved. Concerning issue with the shift of the 5th and 11th greens closer to the creek. My experience is long par 4’s with greens up against water hazards is not typical Ross. I am unaware of a ross course where he build a par four of this length with a green hard against a creek, let alone having 2 on the same course.

Thank you for the invite to tour the course during this process. I won't next be in Asheville until early fall, but I'll be sure to contact you prior.

[Ben Hollerbach]

My father asked me to post the following:

Richard, I know you’ve ridden and walked the course, all or most. Les Stradley is an excellent resource, as is Pat Thompson. I think these two gentlemen and many of the more accomplished players at CCA love the challenge the existing greens present, especially when they play at tournament speeds. That is when the players separate themselves from the golfers. Standing in the fairway of #12, whether at 150 or 100 yards and the pin is front left just above the false front, is a formidable challenge! It demands a skilled shot. Throwing it safely 30’ past the pin in no way guarantees a bogey much less par. Very similar examples abound on the existing green complexes. I won’t spend the time to define them here, Les and Pat can surely define them and/or I can later, if you like. Suffice it to say that 7 greens on the front can offer the challenge that adds just a little fear factor to the shot. Makes you question yourself just enough to put pressure on your swing and your resolve. That same challenge exists on 5 greens on the back. This golf courses defense has always been it’s greens. And that will have to continue. CCA is land locked an no appreciable extension on overall yardage is feasible, or truthfully necessary. There is a charm to the current defense. It is not overstated, if anything, it is understated, Yet that defense is very real and especially at tournament speeds. Whether designed by Ross or others, there is a playfully devilish and subtle aspect. “You’ve been Ross’d” is common during play at CCA. The complexes tease and taunt you in a very fun manner, but they make you think AND execute, if you want to succeed. Maybe the most important aspect of the existing green complexes is the fact that they do require skilled shot making. And if we could ever get the drainage and percolation rates to allow for dry fast play, that shot making requirement grows exponentially, as do the options of how you play various shots.

 

We all know that these greens are well past their time, if they ever were properly built to the standards of the day. Rebuilding them is mandatory. We all know that. What we don’t know….will the new complexes, in same place or relocated, still contain the devilish charm, create the whimsical confusion, and most importantly, make you take notice, pay attention, and execute your chosen shot? It doesn’t matter whether from the fairway, from the fringe, or from the green’s surface? That is what we have today. And frankly this is what this course requires to remain fun for the everyday golfer. AND….have the ability to challenge the accomplished golfer with very little course set up/adjustment for tournament play. Marginally….Grow rough, narrow fairways, firm greens and players at the state level have their hands full. This course’s charms and challenges have survived since the late 20’s, through a lot of difficult times. It’s future survival as a quality design, a time proven design, rests in your new green complexes.

 

I sincerely wish that you could have played this course enough to experience these charms and confusion for yourself. If you had, I think you would truly understand our trepidations to move on to the new and unknown. The Ross Spirit lives in this charm and challenge the greens present. Please make sure that his spirit remains in your new complexes.

[Richard_Mandell]

Ben and Mr. Hollenbach,


Please trust that I know what I am doing and that I am well aware of many of the concerns everyone has.  I may not have played the course as often as you, but I know enough to appreciate what the greens have in them.  I promise that the Ross spirit will not be lost in our work, I appreciate your insight, and it will be in the forefront of my mind as I move forward.  But please trust that I know what I am doing.  More specifically to Ben's concerns:


I am well aware of the flooding and our plan is to fix the flooding problems (or at the very least not cause more flooding issues.  I would never move features one way or the other knowingly throwing caution to the wind when it comes to past conditions such as flooding.


I am also well aware of where the property line on #9 sits and it isn't where you may think.  Again, I would never propose re-locating features with a disregard for property lines or a lack of information in that regard.  I would hope all golf architects would do the same, but maybe I am wrong and you've seen this happen.  I don't know.  Please give me the benefit of the doubt when it comes to something such as a property line.


Please also understand that some thngas I am proposing are similar to the bunker situation on #15 and it may be for more practical reasons such as budget or permitting "bet-hedging".  When time is of the essence (as it was these past four months) one must develop a game plan that will provide for maximum flexibility when the time comes and that is what is happening.  I really do have an overall plan that will not ruin the spirit of Ross, not miss the mark on current needs for the members, staff, and Mr. McConnell, and also not go over budget while still allowing us to obtain permits in record time.  I've done it many times before.  So please, again, trust that I have a plan that may include some items that don't make sense now but will in due time (or may end up not happening).  Ask my previous clients and they will tell you the same.  It is a primary reason why my business has increased every year since 2008 and continues so (pardon my boast, but it works so well right here). 


Regarding the greens next to creeks that Ross may not have gambled with, this is where I may differ from Mr. Ross and won't apologize for that.  I don't think that scooching greens closer to a water body will damage the Ross philosophy here or anywhere else.  By the way, all this is contingent on floodplain, so they may end up where they currently are when we are finished with this.  I do promise that a green edge will not run perilously close and parallel to a creek line in a more modern design fashion, but the greens will be a bit closer.


Regarding the bunker and roll of the land on 2 and 10, I am a fan of hard and fast and so I am not concerned much with bunkers (or other hazards) that may keep a ball in play (provided it is fair and there is ample room elsewhere so one is not forced to play in one direction.  My final decisions are always tempered by making things somewhat balanced (I hate to say the word fair).


The bunker on #11 forces a golfer to the right.  I don't like any hazard that forces a golfer one way or the other.  Can't speak for Ross, but I'm guessing he may agree with my assessment.  If he didn't, maybe he would have put that bunker in himself as well as the left fairway bunker off the tee on #2.  Since he didn't, I feel good about removing it, in the spirit of Ross. 


Regarding #18, my plan is to put a bunker in the corner of the dogleg, which is why I am taking out the first row of trees on that side.  Here is my thought process on that:  Right now, every golfer is forced to hit out to the right off the tee which really eliminates the big tee shot from gaining a possible advantage.  Not that I am designing for the big hitter, but I do think that taking that option out of play completely shouldn't happen.  In a match play situation, the tee shot is rendered irrelevant as everyone will have to lay up off the tee to the same position in the fairway, ready to settle a match with a high iron.  That seems dull to me.


By adding a bunker in the left corner, golfers now have a choice to gamble more off the tee and we all know the big hitter can jack it left very easily.  The risk should provide some reward, and that would be gaining distance with a short cut.  BUT, the green will be hell from that side in terms of receptiveness of any irons.  That is my plan for the green.


I'll be glad to discuss things as we go but I do want to refrain from designing by committee on this thread.  Thanks again for your insight, keep it coming about things such as greens contours which you may enjoy, and trust that I've got items such as floodplain and property lines covered.


I can tell you are a bit more open to my ideas at this point since you changed the name of this thread.  For that, I am appreciative. You should really carve some time out this summer to visit and I would love to meet your father.

[Joe Sponcia]

“Long driving is not a crime–it is a virtue and is more frequently by skill and grace of motion than by mere force. Long drivers should be rewarded, and as a general rule they should have greater latitude, and not less, than short drivers. ” – ALISTER MACKENZIE

[John Mayhugh]

I've never played the Country Club of Asheville, so cannot really comment on any of the specific changes.  I suspect that most, if not all, could be argued as improvements to the current course, or else RM would not have proposed them. 

It seems that a lack of historical information makes it pretty much impossible to restore the Ross design.  But with what I have read about the changes, continuing to call this a Ross course after the renovation would be inappropriate.  What was there pre-renovation likely was not all Ross, but moving and rebuilding a bunch of greens & re-bunkering eliminates any doubt.   

[Sven Nilsen]

Following up on John's point, here's the drawing of the 16th hole done by Ross for Golf Architecture in America as mentioned earlier in the thread:



I am assuming this is the modern version of the hole:



I'd be curious to know what is being done, if anything, to restore the initial character of the hole, particularly the interplay with the lost creek (assuming I even have the right hole pictured).

[Richard_Mandell]

Sven,


You do have the right picture of the hole.  My plan is to replicate the green drawing as best as possible, which specifically means it will move up a few yards so that we can get a grass swale behind it and draining to the left. 


The only other item is to clear the trees to the left off the tees (all of which show their age and have clear brown rot and other issues), prep the area, and convert it to fairway (and no-mow just before).  In addition, we will move the cart path up the hill to the left of the new fairway and tie it in further down the hill.  The understanding is that I don't intend to create a flat landing area.  Rather, I will keep it natural with the result being that the golfer will have a choice to take that route to gain an advantage but the roll of the fairway will mean that tee shots will just go with the roll and the flow wherever they end up.  We will also bring fairway closer to the creek on both sides now that the cart path won't run parallel to it.


Can't do anything to get the crook in the creek back.  That was done in the seventies in the name of channelization and required some fill in the fairway as well.


Before someone posts to tell me how severe that area is, I am aware and am aware of the challenge of re-locating that cart path. Thanks.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Richard,


What strategic advantage will be added to the tee shot on the 16th that is not currently present?

What draws are there to moving the cartpath to the top of the ridgeline along the left hand side of the hole? As the already senior membership at CCA gets older, what concerns exist to their ability to walk down and back up the ~20% sloped hill to get to and from their carts? Also what concern are there for the potential for carts overturning when driving on this hillside?



As the only hole on the course with an original Ross drawing I would have anticipated that the work done to this hole would be to return it to its most original designed form. Being that this hole was originally applauded by Ross, George Thomas, and others in their writings it would suggest that the initial form of the hole was very successful. Thomas described the hole as "A splendid use of existing conditions" for its routing with the creek, forcing the player to cross it 3 times. When resources like these exist, how are they weighed by the architect for inclusion in future work?


Looking at the drawing I'm having a hard time finding the swale behind the green you have referenced. Based upon the drawing it appears that the land behind and to the right of the green is fairly accurate today. Specifically how it is referenced in the side profile.




In the near future I'm gong to produce a photo tour of the course pre-renovation. I'd really appreciate any commentary you'd like to contribute to the topic. We have a wonderful opportunity for a fantastic origin to completion analysis of a course through the complete renovation process. I'd imagine that many members of this forum would love to follow along and dive deeper into the design and construction process.

[Richard_Mandell]

Ben,


All we are doing is providing more access to the left side of the hole now that is currently blocked by trees and bringing the fairway back to the tees more as was explained earlier.  The strategic advantage added to the tee shot will essentially be allowing more golfer types the chance to experience the play.  It will also bring the creek into play more.


We won't place cart path anywhere where there is potential for dangerous conditions.  The plan is only on paper now and will be worked out in the field to ensure safety, which may mean it won't work.  But there is a draw that the path can work into that shouldn't be any more hazardous than anything else out there.  If it doesn't seem to work, then we will make adjustments.


Regarding the swale behind the green, you are right.  If you look at the section line the green fits well into the slope as it is today, but the way the stippling shows between the green and the slope behind often means a swale.  If the green were set right up into the slope, the hatching would come straight down to the green edge.  That said, we have a situation where the info conflicts so one could go both ways, which we are aware of.  The plan is to divert water off the slope behind by use of a swale, but it may not be much deeper than what is there now, although it will be closer to the green and capture more.  That said, we may not push the green out as originally planned.  Remember when I mentioned earlier about putting everything down on paper first and then ratcheting back in the field for permitting/budgetary purposes?  This is one of those situations. 


I will be glad to participate in your efforts on seeing this project through from start to finish with commentary as my schedule allows.