News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Saucon's Grace Course
« on: October 14, 2003, 08:43:58 AM »
Played Suacon's Grace course yesterday in a local PGA section pro/president/golf and greenchairman outing tournament after not having been there in about ten years. Ron Forse has been the consulting architect there for a time and I had a nice chat with the 25 year greenchairman who explained that they continue to look at the course to add interesting strategy to it. I'd definitely say they've accomplished that end. A full 11 of the holes have some significant and varied strategic content to them in a bunch of interesting ways. Not to mention the fact that Suacon Valley is one of the most overall beautiful places one can find--and the day was otherworldly beautiful for this time of year.

But the strategic import that the Grace course has on various holes is worth talking about. It's a William & David Gordon design, perhaps their best course. The bunkering right now looks distinctly like a few variations of William Flynn's, who, of course, William Gordon was the long time foreman for and later his semi-partner after Toomey's death.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2003, 08:45:39 AM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2003, 08:50:08 AM »
Tom;

Has Forse actually changed the content of the holes to create strategy?  I know that some people who've played it in the past have found it underwhelming in term of strategy, so I'm a bit surprised to hear your report.  

Would you term it a redesign, minor revision, or restoration?

TEPaul

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2003, 09:03:41 AM »
Mike:

Probably a redesign but most likely only in the context of bunker inclusion or bunker repositioning (or reworking their "lines"). The green chairman said they look at the holes to add strategic import and if he's talking about doing that through bunker placement, either restored or redesigned they've done a very good job of it. Primarily the bunkering uses very well done diagonals of all applications to accomplish that. All the par 5s are basically of the "tacking" variety, if you know what I mean, and one really needs to employ that strategy correctly if you want to play those par 5 holes correctly! The back to front slope on #5 is very good (and strategic) and the huge fairway bunker on the dogleg #7 is basically "in your face" strategic! #10 is definitely a highly strategic hole in almost every way, and something as simple as the left green-side bunkers (diagonal) on #4 and #11 is very signficant in combination with the slope, shape and orientation of those greens. The back to back #12 and #13 are also very good short par 4s with a lot of natural feature in one way or another going for them!

Mike_Cirba

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2003, 09:07:30 AM »
Tom;

That's very interesting to hear, and I'm going to have to make a point of seeing it..  Any work on the greens, or just the bunkering patterns and styles?

Incidentally, as far as really good Wm/David Gordon courses, have you played Medford Village in NJ?  I haven't played Stanwich or Saucon Grace, but MV is really pretty good.  

wsmorrison

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2003, 09:23:22 AM »
Tom,
I heard a report that Mr. Grace quit his membership at ANGC because he couldn't abide reachable par 5s and abhorred the par 5 13th.  What was it that Brad Klein says?  Some of the richest people can be some of the dumbest?  Apparently his intruction to the Gordons was to build only sure 3 shot par 5s at Saucon Valley.  Ron Forse also mentioned that there are some template holes at SV, among others an Eden hole (I think).  Do you recall any others?  Mike Cirba, can you comment?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2003, 09:24:00 AM by wsmorrison »

TEPaul

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2003, 09:53:46 AM »
The par 5s at Saucon really aren't all that long for the players today. #1 is close to 600 but it would be reachable for today's players--primarily because almost all the par 5s are some form of double doglegs (tacking holes). We didn't play the tips yesterday but my pro, Terry Hertzog, who won 2 of 3 of the last Pa Opens hits it pretty far and could probably reach any of them, but angle sure would have a whole lot to do with that, particularly #1 and #10.

Matt_Ward

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2003, 10:12:24 AM »
Mike is quite correct concerning the work of the Gordons / re: Medford Village (formerly Sunny Jim's). It's a fine course and has tons of more creative shotmaking opportunities than the bland Grace Course at Saucon Valley. I never quite understood how the Grace Course is consistently rated as being so much better than a number of other Pennsy courses.

The course is on flat undistinguished land given the overall majesty of the Lehigh Valley. I guess the course epitomizes the desire of it's owner because it simply lacks the compelling nature for a return visit. I'd mush rather venture to the Old or Weyhill courses.

I'd be very interested in seeing if any upgrades have been done to bolster the lack of imagination you see with the layout I have played several times over the years. The Grace is simply a long and boring course -- yes, it has its tough holes in spots, but one needs a good matress to rest between shots.

Keep in mind another interesting layout by the Gordons -- Oak Hill in Jersey -- just across the Delaware off of I-78. Here you have a course with a degree of style and fanfare that is quite good -- the putting surfaces are also well done and the long par-3 15th is one of the best long par-3's in Jersey IMHO.

You also have another Gordon course in south Jersey -- Buena Vista -- about 30 minutes west of AC on Rte 40. The layout there has plenty of strategic qualities and if turf conditions have improved is certainly more fun to play than the Grace IMHO.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2003, 10:26:26 AM »
Matt;

Buena Vista is very good and very overlooked.  Better yet, it's public.

Ditto with the Gordon's course near Saucon, Locust Valley GC, which began life as a private club but is now a quite enjoyable public.  

TEPaul

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2003, 11:58:45 AM »
Saucon's Grace course regarding strategic interest did used to be relatively bland, particularly the front nine as it's much flatter than some of the back. Some holes are still relatively bland strategically such as #2, #6, #9 (maybe #4 too although it's length 232 does add interest). #10-15 are good holes for a wide variety of reasons. #16-18 are basically the way they were although it appears to me that #18 may have had some good bunkering placement done on the left for the tee shot.

I'll go through all the holes at some point and also try to explain what it is about the design that makes it basically the recognizable style of The Gordon's/Flynn and why what Forse and the club has apparently done so far has added some strategic interest to it.

I think my favorite hole for interest would have to be #10 and if anyone knows this hole now I wouldn't mind discussing how the hole might be affected if all the trees came down on the right on the tee shot along the creek/river. It'd probably weaken the hole somewhat but might create other interest to it that would be very neat albeit maybr not so strictly challenging.

I also like #11--a par 3, although it very simply uses one primary bunker left--well placed and well angled with a green that's very well angled in combination with the bunker and a angled hillside behind that adds very much to the entire set-up. This is a good example of how a couple of otherwise simple architectural applications can be very effectively used in combination.

Robert Emmons

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2003, 01:23:55 PM »
Is the new irrigation system finished now. I played both the Old and the Weyhill courses in August and thought both were very interesting. Grace was closed when I was there...

Matt_Ward

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2003, 01:30:13 PM »
emmrob:

You didn't miss much in not playing the Grace -- in fact, the Old & Weyhill do have some interesting holes on both courses.

How the Grace has consistently been included among the top 100 courses in the USA by the leading publications truly baffles me. You would be better served by playing any of a number of superb layouts that are immediately nearer to Phillie IMHO.

TEPaul

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2003, 01:42:29 PM »
"How the Grace has consistently been included among the top 100 courses in the USA by the leading publications truly baffles me."

Matt:

That would baffle me too. Well, let me amend that--very little that the magazines say about who is in top 100 in the USA baffles me. What really baffles me is that so many people actually believe everything the magazine ratings say! What the top 100 is about to most people isn't about architecture, or probably much of anything else, for that matter. All that's important to most people is that the magazines say a course is in the Top 100 in the USA period.  ;)

Matt_Ward

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2003, 02:06:23 PM »
Tom:

What really makes this interesting is that once a course gets on such a listing it usually stays. How the Grace got listed while other more noteworthy Phillie layouts have been relegated to the sidelines is truly mind-boggling. Can anyone really say that Huntington Valley and Rolling Green, to name just two, are behind the Grace Course in terms of what they offer?

I find the Grace course to be a layout taken right out of the boring pages of just length for length's sake and a design with so little of anything remotely connected to the word "compelling." If in fact Ron Forse was called in and is doing work I would be very much interested to see if substanial improvements are made because the layout and the flat land the course occupies now is just something that doesn't even merit consideration as being one of the best courses in the Keystone State -- never mind, the USA IMHO.

Tom -- I do believe the magazines need to really look closer at some of the courses that have indeed maintained their position. Clearly, somebody thinks the Grace is the cat's meow. I don't. If you want a better golf experience when at Saucon Valley I'd always opt for the Old Course. If memory serves -- so has the USGA when the Senior Open has been there twice.

Robert Emmons

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2003, 02:08:58 PM »
The USGA uses a combination of the Grace and Old.

JNagle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2003, 02:15:32 PM »
Gentleman,

It is nice to see Saucon Valley getting some time on this board. When you consider that the Club has 60 holes of golf to offer and the quality of each individual course it is hard to argue that Saucon may one of the finest Club's in America.  Each course is different, each has a varied architectural style and additionally the land and routings are all distinct.  As for the Grace, this is what Forse Design has done to date:

Hole #1:  Two bunkers added to the outside right of the hole to tighten the tee ball for long hitters, also the bunkers will better contain balls along the right as it remains wet right of the hole.
(2003)
Hole #4:  Tree removal and work on the pond to the left of the hole. (2002)

Hole #10:  Removed numerous trees along the stream to re-open the line of play along the right.  The hole used to be such a demanding double dog-leg because of the intrusion of trees along the Saucon Creek.  Trees were removed on the inside of the 2nd dogleg and bunkers were added in thier place.  This did open the line of play into the green, but one must play closer to the creek off the tee to gain the reward. (2000 and 2001)

Hole #11:  An old tee was brought back into play on this Redan par 3.  The angle was greatly improved. (2002)

Hole #12: This past July we rebuilt the green moving it left away from the hillside and lowering a few feet.  The desire was to retrun it to more of a Gordon green with bunkering similar to the rest of the course.  (2003)  I would be interested to hear your comment Tom on how this green played and if you realized it was recently rebuilt.

Hole #18:  A bunker short right of the green was added creating a challenge for those who play away from the large left fairway bunker. (2000)

We also worked with Terry Laurent, a great Supt. and a person deserving of much credit, in expanding all of the Grace fairways in preparation for the new irrigation system.

All in all the Grace course is a great strategic golf course.  The 15th hole, a par 5, is a great example of strategy and the necessity of ball placement off the tee to reward each subsequent shot.  I am sure even the long Grace course is beginning to feel the effects of equipment change so some of the strategies may be lost to the likes of Terry Hetzog and other long hitters.  Ron Forse is going to be speaking with David Gordon in the near future about what was one of the Gordon's best creations.  

Wayne,

A couple of the prototype holes are;

#5 - Eden
#6 - Sahara
#11 - Redan

The master plan for the Grace has not been fully implemented as the Club has chipped away at it over the last five years.  There are many things planned for all of Saucon which will only enhance what is an already great Club.

It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or the doer of deeds could have done better.  The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; .....  "The Critic"

TEPaul

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2003, 04:55:35 PM »
"(2003)  I would be interested to hear your comment Tom on how this green played and if you realized it was recently rebuilt."

Jim:

I couldn't help but notice that something had been done recently with #12 green but I couldn't tell you how it played because yesterday they had about a 237sf green cut about twenty yards short of it in the fairway. I did walk up and look at the new green though and it looks very good to me. There is a ton of basic internal contour in that new green which is pretty different from the other greens on the Grace.

To be honest the Grace course greens are pretty mundane in internal contour though, basically relying on either some interesting slope on some #5!!, #13!!, #14!. I reserved #4 because that's an unusual one and a very good one, in my opinion, basically using that side to side ridge across the back third of the green. The rest of the green-end interest on the Grace seems to rely on the Gordon/Flynn style of squeezing the green fronts and approaches in some (depending on the hole's distance) with bunkering on both sides (way more in the first half of the greens than the back halves--another recognizable Gordon/Flynn style) of the greens that are basically straight on and on green angle and diagonal orientation on those that aren't straight on.

I don't think I would've recognized the Eden, Sahara or Redan holes as such although I thought they were all good and interesting in various ways.

The pretty severe back to front slope on that wide and shallow Eden (#5) is really good (I three putted a pretty makeable birdie putt from just above the pin). What's the story with the differing bunker styles (surrounds) on that Eden hole? It'd be much better for the Grace course if all the surrounds on the course looked like the bunker to the right and in front and the greenside bunker left on that hole (in my opinion)---entirely different from all the clean edged bunkers on the rest of the course.

But again, my favorite was #10--a truly interesting and stratgic hole. What would you think if almost all the trees were removed on the tee shot right, exposing the river to view and play from the tee? Furthermore, what would you think if the trees on the left down by the green were removed too (including that willow)? The creek runs down there at a perfect angle and protects against short shots slightly left. If you guys put that bunkering in within a hundred yards of the green that's really well placed and angled too and highly strategic to the second shot.

« Last Edit: October 14, 2003, 05:08:44 PM by TEPaul »

peter_mcknight

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2003, 09:21:02 PM »
Wow...finally a discussion about SVCC's Grace Course.  As I'm leaving my office, I intend to respond to this thread in the morning.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2003, 10:14:40 PM »
Emmrob;

The USGA uses only the Old Course at Saucon.  They simply change the order of the existing holes so that #18 plays as #15.  

The Old Course features some really cool greens, courtesy of the combined efforts of mostly Herbert Strong & Perry Maxwell.  

I haven't seen either the other two courses, so I'm simply going by hearsay.  Let's just say that a lot of folks in the area who I've spoken with feel the Grace course is not quite as good as its national reputation.  I'm very interested to see what Ron, Jim, and company are doing in the way of improvements.

TEPaul

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #18 on: October 15, 2003, 05:19:18 AM »
JimN:

I hate to even attempt to recommend things on the Grace but having talked to the green chairman the other evening for about 20 minutes he did say that he and you all continue to look for interesting ways of making the course play more interesting and strategic, so here goes,

1/ Very good now with the bunker arrangement, the tacking effect of the hole and the big long bunker left balancing out the dogleg right treeline on the hole's second half. Pretty bland green though.

2/ Relatively bland straight-away flatland hole with the green straight-on and the two usual Gordon/Flynn front greenside bunkers pinching in the approach. I'd think to eat that tee shot bunker on the right into the fairway maybe 5-6 paces and maybe eat the bunker greenside left into the approach some and take out the greenside bunker right or minimize it thereby balancing the risk/reward of the tee shot and approach better. It'd be nice to see that creek closer to the green but that's a good effect and feature for the shorter hitters and handicappers playing that hole.

3/ Don't know what to recommend on this one. Pretty bland really and basically of interest because of it's length.

4/ Very nice hole and the green (side to side ridge) and green-end (angle and orientation of the green and left side bunker) is simple but very good.

5/ Very nice short par 3 made by the wide and shallow very back to front green slope and nice bunker arrangement.

6/ Not bad short hole. Some interesting internal green contour would be good there on this short hole though.

7/ Very good fairway bunker, very memorable and very "in your face" strategically and obviously needs some experience to deal with properly. Green-end another green with front approach squeezed in by that Gordon/Flynn either side bunker style.

8/ I'd eat that fairway bunker into the fairway a bit (maybe 4-5 paces) and balance out the tee shot options of the pond short right with the fairway over the bunker to the left. Green Ok, sort of bland.

9/ Eat that fairway bunkering left into the fairway more creating a bit more dogleg off that bunkering on the inside. Green another Gordon/Flynn pinched in front approach with green-side bunkering.

10/ Really good hole. What would you think of the trees coming down right exposing the river both on the drive and down at the green-end left? Members would say it would make the hole easier but certainly would take some of the tee shot "shot dictation" out of the drive due to those trees right and just might create all kinds of interesting choices of shots and options, rewards and disasters. I guess the question is if there were no trees on the right on the drive how good a tee shot diagonal would that river right create?

11/ Really good architectural arrangement of bunker left, green orientation and shape and hillside right and behind. The way the green runs away very subtly in the back is very good and deceptive (from the tee).

12/ A really good change of pace hole from the rest of the course to this point. Your green looks small, well angled and interesting internally.

13/ Wonderful short hole using all kinds of topography and a nice bit of "turn" in the last 1/3! I like those blind bunkers way out right and how they balance the right to left "fall" in that area.

14/ Good hole

15/ I sure do agree that the bunkering on this flatland hole works well in a decision making, tacking sort of way.

16/ Don't know what to recommend on this long straight away flatland hole with the same Gordon/Flynn pinched in approach bunkering on either side of the green, although the slope coming off the side of the left bunker into the green is very effective! That alone may be the thing to highlight and feature more on this hole--possibly taking more green back left and behind it!

17/ A typical dogleg right using the entire right side tree-line. I'd get rid of those pines straight through the dog-leg and think about maybe some interesting and wide bunker arrangement or bunker and low mound combination scheme in their place (God knows we sure do have enough of those on the old Flynn plans). The green and green-end is ANOTHER Gordon pinched in approach by greenside bunkering on either side front. I don't know if the club is thinking of any green redesigns but this just might be a great place to work in a green and green angle arrangement something along the lines of Lehigh's #5 green and green-end. The orientation and shape of that green is unusual and really good particularly with nothing over the left side and rear! This green and green-end need something more to set up the correct tee shot and options.

18/ Good hole but pinched in green approach with greenside bunkering on either side front again. All those bunker pinched approaches at Grace are reminiscent of Philly C.C's #9, #10, #18 (a Gordon green and green-end, btw--which is actually a very good green and green-end!).

Many of the greens at Grace internally could use a little enhancing in my opinion. Certainly to bring them up somewhere near the interest of the greens on #4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #19 on: October 15, 2003, 05:36:19 AM »
TEPaul,

Aren't you undertaking the same process by which all the classics were modified, to our dismay ?

On what course was the 1951 or 1952 US AM played ?

TEPaul

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #20 on: October 15, 2003, 05:52:49 AM »
Patrick:

I don't know that I'd call Saucon's Grace a classic, would you? The course appears to have been built by the Gordons in two nine hole sessions in 1953 and 1958. The setting of the Grace course is particularly beautiful but much of it is a flatland design that appears to have been much of the bland and distance oriented architecture of that particular era (when the best 200 courses were listed as the "hardest" 200 courses and "hard" related about 85% to distance!).

Many of the holes there need some enhancing to make them play better and more strategic. That has been and apparently continues to be done and the course seems to be far better for it. I understand the membership feels that way and I don't think I'd disagree. Apparently Forse design doesn't either.

Let me ask you something Pat? What KIND of golf course DO you think could stand some redesign and enhancement, particularly of a strategic nature? Or do you just think that once ANY golf course has been built that it should be left alone?

T_MacWood

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2003, 06:19:11 AM »
I'd be curious to know the history of the Old course. From what I've seen it was originally a very wild H. Strong design--with his typical cornucopia of bizarre shaped and sized bunkers. (If I'm not mistaken Grace was a member of PV and PV was completed at the same time the Old course was being developed--I wonder if they shared some philosophical similarities.) The routing today looks to be pretty much the same, but many of the bunkers were removed or altered. Anybody know when, by whom and why the changes were made?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2003, 06:36:12 AM »
TEPaul,

What I'm trying to point out is that this is probably how most classic courses were altered.

In some cases an alteration was probably done to soften the golf course, in other cases the alteration was possibly viewed as improving the golf course.

Who makes that call ?

In the absolute, and allowing for the built in elasticization of a golf course, I think a prudent case could be made for leaving a course as it was originally designed.

But, that hasn't happened, and I don't think it will happen in the future.

What interested me is that for three (3) years a great deal of discussion on GCA.com has been about the disfiguring of golf courses and the applauding of restoration efforts.

And now, you're proposing to undertake the exact same process that many, including yourself, have vehemently objected to, altering a golf course.

Is there an underlying, compelling need to "improve" a golf course ?
And, again, who makes that judgement ?

Looking back upon the classic courses, would you say that the alterations improved or disfigured those courses ?

By what standard is a golf course open to improvement ?

Should Friar's Head, Hidden Creek and Easthampton be improved ?

T_MacWood

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #23 on: October 15, 2003, 06:59:32 AM »
Pat
Interesting questions. Perhaps you should start your own thread instead of de-railing this one.

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Saucon's Grace Course
« Reply #24 on: October 15, 2003, 07:16:37 AM »
Tom Mac,

Here is the club history from www.gapgolf.org:



In the instances of DuPont Country Club and McCall Field, the clubs were founded by the companies. Not so in the case of Saucon Valley Country Club, though it is safe to say that Bethlehem Steel's interest in it, from the beginning, was a very real one.

In 1920, 16 Bethlehem business leaders, including a core group from Bethlehem Steel Corporation, acquired 205 acres of farmland lying along the Saucon Creek, five miles south of the city. Helping to kindle the interest of prospective members was an exhibition match in mid-September at nearby Northampton Country Club that pitted Harry Vardon and Ted Ray against Chick Evans and Eugene G. Grace. Vardon, Ray, and Evans were household names in the world of golf. Grace, on the other hand, was a local amateur who played very close to par and who was, moreover, president of Bethlehem Steel Corporation. Golfing novices on hand that day could marvel at Ray's explosive power, Vardon's astonishing accuracy, and Evans's brilliant iron play. They might also well envision joining the new country club their friends were talking about, the one Mr. Grace was going to make sure would be second to none.



Food service in the original clubhouse at Saucon Valley, a 200-year-old farmhouse, was cafeteria style.

Saucon Valley was to be a family club. The entrance fee was pegged at $100, with annual club dues of $50 and golf dues of $25. No charge of any kind was made for "the wife, unmarried daughters, and minor sons."

During the autumn of that year, especially on weekends, it was not uncommon to see members and their families laboring mightily to transform what had been an operating farm into a country club. There were contests to see who could pick up the most stones from the projected fairways. Pigsties had to be dismantled, as did the big barn. Chicken coops and corn cribs had to be taken down, but carefully—they could be sold. The wagon shed became the locker house (ladies upstairs, men downstairs). The old spring house and milk dispenser found new life as the golf shop. And the 200-year-old farmhouse was converted into a clubhouse, the most noticeable improvement being the addition of large porches. Food service was cafeteria-style. As the 1922 club handbook made clear, "Members and their guests shall have the privilege of eating their meals any place in the house or on the Grounds of the Club, but members so doing must return all trays, dishes, etc. to the service counter."

The original plans called for a nine-hole course, but this was not what Eugene Grace had in mind. It was one thing to make do with the farmhouse and to prevail upon three contractors to donate the cement for the swimming pool, but there would be no stinting on the golf course.

Herbert Strong, an Englishman who had recently remodeled Inwood, in Far Rockaway, Long Island, where Bob Jones would win his first U.S. Open, in 1923, was selected by Grace to design the course. Strong routed the eighteen through the cornfields and the wheat fields, over the grazing land and the acreage planted in clover. On five of the holes, including the final three, he brought the Saucon Creek prominently into play.

The course opened in 1922 to immediate acclaim. Even the uninitiated—and the majority of Saucon members were certainly that—could sense that this was an excellent design, a succession of diverse golf holes that amply rewarded well-struck shots, yet were not so penal as to discourage the novice. So sound and satisfying was the Strong design that only relatively minor revisions would be made to it in the years to come.

The new club had an 18-hole course of which it could be proud. But, as was the case at the DuPont Country Club, this was only the beginning. The coming decades would see the expansion of the club on such a scale—and with such extraordinary care and taste—that it would become a venue for five USGA championships and would provide its ever-increasing membership with a wealth of sporting facilities and social amenities matched by only a handful of country clubs in all the world.