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.


Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« on: October 16, 2003, 07:45:44 PM »
If he had one great property?

Having always liked Wilson's courses, I realized I have never seen his work on a great piece of land (not including Seminole).

That being said, does a Wilson Course exist on awesome - or even very good - property? I cannot imagine he would have squandered it.

Bidermann? Coldstream? Laurel Valley? Meadow Brook?

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2003, 08:21:58 PM »
Here I was thinking you meant Hugh  ??? :P

Meadow Brook is pretty good as far as inland properties are concerned. Very nice movement throughout.

As for your question, I think no. I'm not really a fan of Wilson, so I'm not disposed to thinking he would have done anything other than mediocre work. My fondness of Meadow Brook notwithstanding.

I hope by your post you are not insinuating that we should credit Seminole as Wilson. I can't imagine that Wilson would be able to fit one of his huge greens on that site, let alone an entire course.

TEPaul

Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2003, 08:33:46 PM »
Seminole is definitely Ross not Wilson. The only significant documented work of Wilson at Seminole I know of was to move the 18th green. NCR is a pretty good site, so is Meadowbrook, Bidermann etc. How about Deepdale?

JLahrman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2003, 08:40:51 PM »
I don't know what you consider good property, but Coldstream wouldn't be considered bad.  The land rolls a bit, especially on the front.  Not an awesome property but certainly worthwhile.

Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2003, 08:53:29 PM »
TEPaul,

    Didn't Wilson do some work on the bunkers at Seminole? Nothing to do with new bunkering schemes however, but altering their appearance by eliminating the edge condition Ross had used to mimic the waves on the Atlantic. Does that mean it is a Wilson course, I think not, but his influence may be a little stronger than people might think.

Tyler Kearns

mark chalfant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2003, 09:04:44 PM »
Ben,
NCR  (south) is a superb course on very good terrain that

features lots of elevation changes that Wilson did c. 1954 in

the Dayton suburbs. Its a great driving course where you

often need to shape your tee shot to negotiate a dogleg

or to get a better angle for your approach to the large but

but beautifully conceived greens.

The artfully-shaped  bunkers bite into  the rolling greens  like a

hungry bulldog.  Several great holes on this scenic and

challenging masterpiece including  2,6, 9, 10, 12, and 16. NCR-  

worth a trip from Canada even if you were living in the Yukon!        

 
Ive heard that Deepale (long island)  is a fine design on nice (not awesome)  property.

regards, mark


noonan

Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #6 on: October 16, 2003, 09:14:22 PM »
NCR is a real treat.......There are many holes indeed where you must place you drive in a specific spot in the fairway.....only 6900 from the tips.....it will give the seniors all they want in a couple years.

The 4th hole is maybe one of the best short holes I have ever played........and the green is very large for such a short hole.....it is not uncommon to have a 60 footer on 4.

15 is a 230 yard uphill par 3 with a false front and bunkering very tight on both sides....any 3 on 15 has been earned.

JK

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2003, 09:49:23 PM »
Wilsopn is one of my favorites.
Pinetree
NCR
Coldstream
Fincastle
Mountain course Callaway gardens
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Mike_Cirba

Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2003, 10:10:19 PM »
The "wave effect" on Seminole's bunkering was original Ross, as seen in Geoff Shack's "Golden Age of Golf Design" photos.

I understand that they aren't quite like that today, having been altered to more of a grass face by Silva in recent years.  Still, I've heard very positive reports by most here who've played it, but I think the originals looked ultra cool.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #9 on: October 16, 2003, 10:31:48 PM »
Mike Cirba,

Wilson's bunkers looked pretty good too.
Let's not diminish or ignore his work there.

TEPaul,

I believe that Wilson also moved the fairway and tee on # 18 as well as the green.

Ben Dewar,

I'm one of the few on this site that will admit to having enjoyed Wilson's work.

I liked:
Doral
Meadow Brook
Bay Hill
JDM
Pine Tree
Beden's Brook
Deepdale
Laurel Valley
Westmoreland

And, I've heard that La Costa, Wilmington, Cog Hill, Coldstream, NCR, Elizabeth Manor and Greenbriar aren't bad either.

It is alleged that Wilson designed relatively few courses in his later years so he could give his persoal attention to each work bearing his name.  Isn't that what many on this site drool about, and clamor for ???

Dick Wilson seems to be the Rodney Dangerfield of golf course architects.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2003, 10:37:37 PM »
Cog Hill Dubsdread #4 is just one tough hole after another. The cloverleaf shaped greens with bunkers in every lobe means the 6,000-7,000 greens effectively play like 3,000 sf greens.

Doral Blue is, I think, 99% Dick Wilson.  I've played it half a dozen times, and my overwhelming memory is standing in the fairway with an iron in my hand, looking at a pin sticking up out of bunkers that look like they go completely across the green!  It was hard to tell how deep into the green the hole was, never mind where the center of the green was!  For a basically flat site, Doral Blue was pretty good until recent redesign work.   :-[

Mike_Cirba

Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #11 on: October 16, 2003, 11:48:37 PM »
Patrick;

My post wasn't meant as a slight to any work that Wilson may have done at Seminole.

It was simply meant to point out that the wildly flashed up, ocean wave bunker style was originally built by Ross, which was not only unusual for him, but indicative of the type of "site specific" design many Golden Agers did, but somehow never received proper credit for.  So many people think in terms of a stereotypical Ross...or Tillie bunker...yet the historical, pictorial record shows that they were MUCH more varied and creative than such simplifying analysis concedes.

Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2003, 12:01:10 AM »
Sean,
Just the opposite, I was not crediting Wilson for the work at Seminole. Regardless of his level of work, it was not his routing and I am wondering what he might have done with a great piece for original work.

Mark,
While Toronto is often confused with the Yukon, I am not that far from NCR, will check it out.

Mike Young,
Can you tell me about Fincastle? How would you describe the land?

Patrick,
Agreed that he is under appreciated, but of the courses you liked, which sites were "great". Bay Hill, Doral and Pine Tree are not, in my opinion.
La Costa is not all that great, and there has been lots of work since Wilson left. Bob Cupp redesigned the Meadows Course and it was by far the worst property of the three courses at the Greenbrier.

Bill,
I am pretty sure that Doral was Joe Lee's work, but I could be mistaken. I can only remember Doral, post the recent work, so as you can imagine, I am less than enamoured.

Adam_Messix

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2003, 12:03:48 AM »
I guess it is a shame that some of Wilson's better work stays out of the public spotlight.  

Tom Doak's description of Deepdale is dead on accurate in the Confidential Guide.  A lot of dog leg holes with 18 severe greens.  The most difficult and noteworthy being 8, 14, and 18, although they are all quite difficult to putt from above the hole.  It is my understanding that #8 has been softened a bit so that a shot halfway onto to the green does not roll 40 yards down the fairway.  The only thing Deepdale lacks in my mind is enough really long par 4s, there is only one at DGC, #11.  Worth playing just to enjoy playing on an empty golf course on a beautiful day.  

I enjoy playing Bidermann more though.  There are a number of really strong holes, both long and short.  The short 7th and the long 10th are excellent.  I particularly liked the 14th hole as you could hit a sliding cut and gain 40 yards on the tee shot.  The only downer is that they bulldozed perhaps the best hole on the course, #17, to put in a larger practice range.  Gil Hanse did the replacement 17th and 18th so I'm sure they're fine holes, but I'm not sure they could possibly be as good as the originals.  

I have always enjoyed playing Dick Wilson courses and have never left one disappointed.

TEPaul

Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2003, 05:37:03 AM »
In my opinion, if one is interested in the true evolution of golf architecture from the Golden Age into the Modern Age as something that may have involved a sort of "natural evolution" one should look very closely at the details of Dick Wilson's career!

In a sense I'd call Wilson's career and inventory the best example of that natural evolution or what could have or should have been that natural evolution. In this sense he probably was the true "transition" architect. His far more notable competitor, RTJ, got just a bit too far out there in expanding into new things and perhaps became a bit of an exaggeration of what maybe should've more naturally come about. An architect such as William Gordon was in Wilson's ballpark but just didn't have his stuff, in my opinion.

Writing a book on Flynn it sort of haunts me to think that it was really Flynn, Wilson's long time employer and probably mentor, who could've and would've been the real "transition" architect between the two distinctly different eras (pre-WW2 vs post WW2).

It sort of haunts me to think where Flynn would've gone, where he could've gone architecturally if he'd lived and worked at least twenty years beyond the date of his death in 1945. Would his evolving work have been good, really good, or something else?

T_MacWood

Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #15 on: October 17, 2003, 07:13:38 AM »
Ben I think you might be on to something. In Ohio NCR is very good rolling site; Coldstream not as interesting.

He seemed devote a lot of time and effort in Florida--where great sites are rare. I agree with Mike C. on Seminole, Wilson has been mistakenly been given credit for Seminole's flashy bunkering style (thats Ross). In fact in the 40's and 50's Wilson's style was mush more subdued than his later more flashy look. He made trip to Melbourne in the late 50's...I believe...I wonder if that may have had an impact.

There is probably a good reason why he didn't have great sites...he had dificulty competing with RTJ. One of his big coups was Royal Montreal, I'm not sure what that site is like.

Wilson seemed to be making a breakthrough in the early 60's. In fact Hogan had chosen his to build his dream course...unfortunately Wilson became ill and died. That certainly would garnered a lot publicity. Ironically that site--outside Houston--was evidently very poor. (Hogan eventually built a course with DW's former associated Joe Lee outside FW).

Wilson was also of the opinion ANGC was overrrated. He thought the shortish par-5's were the courses weakness (and he didn't like the greens). Maybe the site was too interesting.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #16 on: October 17, 2003, 09:01:24 AM »
TEP -

Interesting post. I agree. To understand the transition from the Golden Age to the "Modern Age" ("Dark Age"?), the key is DW and RTJ.

Post WWII, RTJ sold himself as the originator of a new and better design theory. And people bought it. Bobby Jones did, the USGA did and most of the high profile developers of the era did.

DW didn't seem to have a vision to sell. He was the red-headed step child of gca. He drank too much, was probably a depressive, hard to get along with and routinely belittled by RTJ. Without fanfare, he just went out and did his job.

But it is precisely DW's lack of hubris that makes his courses more appealing today. Maybe it was because he never entirely left his Golden Age/Flynn connection. Unlike RTJ, he didn't view the Golden Age as something to be overcome. Don't know.

I do know, however, that his Mountain Course at Callaway Gardens is a delight. There is little flash. Just a solid routing, interesting green complexes and new things to learn with every round.

If those attributes are typical of good DW courses, then it's clear why DW never had a chance againt the marketing alliance that RTJ arranged with the USGA.

DW didn't claim to be building revolutionary new courses. He didn't do "heroic" holes. He didn't do "monster" courses. He didn't claim to be on the cutting edge of a bright, new future for gca.

So he lost the marketing battle and was left with the table scraps.

That's too bad. He deserved better.

Bob        


 
« Last Edit: October 17, 2003, 09:25:08 AM by BCrosby »

TEPaul

Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #17 on: October 17, 2003, 09:57:13 AM »
Bob:

I don't know, Dick Wilson did have a following--that I know but obviously he wasn't anything like the big marketing or noteriety machine of RTJ.

That may be why Wilson could be considered more of a true transition architect from the pre-war era to the post-war era. That really wasn't RTJ because anyone knowledgeable about those eras or who remembers that time could make a pretty good case that is was RTJ himself, and probably alone, that basically created much of what the the modern era initially came to be!!

How did RTJ do that? Basically by offering some new concepts in architecture that didn't seem to have any real foundation at all in the pre-war era architecture. Many of them were new and wholly innovative. They definitely included an immediate push into much greater overall distance (and I think there definitely was a bit of a nefarious reason for that!), much larger scale in bunkering, in green size, multi-form green shapes, super long teeing areas, strategic "definition" and "dictation" with bunkering on both sides of drive areas etc.

There were certainly a number of simultaneous contributing factors for this kind of thing, I'm sure. Immediately superior equipment (maybe having something to do with the high production and innovativeness in large machinery of WW2!), superior and far more prevalent irrigation, the onset of a entirely new wave of more sophisticated golf equipment, and the fact that RTJ was a natural born star and promoter! RTJ was definitely "The Man" and we of this era should understand and not forget that. RTJ almost single-handedly put the whole concept of the super-famous International architect on the map. Sure, some of the old guys were famous in some golf and architectural circles but RTJ became the first golf architect who was widely known by the general public and even the non-golfing public.

And there was probably another sort of phenomenon of that early Modern Age era of the very late 1940s, picking up steam through the 1950s and into the 1960s. America, like England wanted to put the World War and that world shattering time behind them and try to forget the pain and dislocation of it all and get onto something else with a fresh break! RTJ offered that in spades--Wilson really didn't. England voted Churchill out of office after having him lead them through the War (trying to forget).

The US returned home and wanted to get on with a new kind of life and enjoy a new stability. Most of those old courses had been mothballed anyway, they were narrowed, features let go and obsoleted and basically forgotten about on purpose. America wanted to look to a new age in almost everything anyway and forget the old and RTJ was either lucky enough or clever enough to play into that sentiment in spades. Forget the past and start the new!

Dick Wilson was much at all like that, that I can see--except for the fact that he did seem to parallel some of RTJ's inovative ideas but didn't really stick with them or promote them. But I know that a very dedicated group of golfers and clubmen, particularly from the interconnection of The Northeast coast and Florida and also the beginning of the Midwest influence in Florida stuck to Wilson and had very little to do with RTJ. Wilson was a southeast Florida based architect and they used him on everything they did, including redesigning such places as Seminole, Gulf Stream and building such courses as Pine Tree, Meadow Brook, Deepdale, Bidermann, Wilmington, Laurel Valley, Bedens Brook and also some courses in the Bahamas such as Lyford Cay.

The important thing to understand is most all those people responsible for those courses knew each other--they were a loose group of interconnected friends and acquaintences from up and down the East coast and also some midwestern and sourthern centers. How and why did they know each other like that? That's an interesting story but mostly had to do with the fact that they all wintered along the southeast coast of Florida--and they all had money!

When Wilson died somewhat prematurely they all turned to Joe Lee (Wilson's partner) for a time but a very brief time. One of the reasons Lee's popularity may have been brief was right at that time another budding golf architecture star entered their picture and their world and group--Pete Dye!

But ironically they never really did use Pete Dye the same way they used and relied on Wilson. Pete was into his own style--a style that has to be considered an entirely separate and distinct entity in the overall era of the "Modern Age". Pete was a bit of a "renaissance" architect very much bringing ideas and concepts and features from the old country into his new style architecture. Pete also got much of his initial noteriety from professional tourament golf architecture!

That got immediate notice but it never seemed to fit into that Wilson modus operandi for that loose group of redesigning some of their old courses and evolving his new archtiecture out of them in many ways unlike RTJ! So in many ways that interesting interconnected group that was so high on Wilson sort of dispersed. He died, they were getting older etc, etc!
« Last Edit: October 17, 2003, 10:05:32 AM by TEPaul »

Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #18 on: October 17, 2003, 11:04:38 AM »
Tom M,
Royal Montreal is entirely uninteresting, both as a site and a golf course. And given Ian Andrew's experience, I believe that it is very much Joe Lee's work.
Did not know his thoughts on Augusta, but that is interesting.


While I agree that he may have been a "step-child", the man got lots of work. He certainly had work all over North America and he was not short on high-profile projects. Clearly institutions such as the Greenbrier, Seminole, Doral, La Costa, Jekyll Island, Pine Tree, NCR, etc... These giants of the day certainly had a reason for picking him, clearly over RTJ.

I have also been wondering whether comparisons to RTJ have diminished the vast amount of work Wilson (even if Lee did lots) really did. Surely he could not compete with RTJ's long track record, but I cannot believe too many will, especially on the global scale.

TEPaul,
Was the group of northeasterner's involved in his Caribbean ventures? Certainly their use of him, helped build a name to gain the other projects.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #19 on: October 17, 2003, 02:03:28 PM »
TEP -

As you note, there was a very different mind set after WWII. I'm not sure I understand it entirely. But it's clear that there was a transformation in what people were looking for in a good golf course.

In that regard note that Ross survived WWII. But he got very few commissions until his death in 1952(?). He was getting very old and no doubt that was part of the reason. But I suspect another part was that he was perceived as out of fashion.

I did not appreciate the extent of DW's work in SE Florida. Sounds like I need to get down there to see more of his courses. Pine Tree is one I especially want to see.

Bob
« Last Edit: October 17, 2003, 02:06:58 PM by BCrosby »

TEPaul

Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #20 on: October 17, 2003, 02:35:59 PM »
Bob:

Ross died in 1948. That's one of the oddities, perhaps tragedies of the evolution of golf in America. The basic division between the eras really wasn't the four years of the war for us, it was that added to the depression basically creating a major hiatus of about fifteen or more years. Unfortunately, most of the most accomplished "old guys" just didn't last that long---most all of them were gonzo when RTJ took the banner down another road! Basically the twain got snapped, in my opinion. Plus so many other things entered the equation. Who knows what the "old guys" would've done if the evolution was more seamless and the hiatus wasn't so long?

Tom Fazio has stated pretty bluntly they (the "old guys") would've done the same things as the Modern Age architects did. We'll never know--that's the enigma wrapped in the riddle inside the conundrum! ;)

garbod

Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #21 on: October 17, 2003, 09:29:15 PM »
He was

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #22 on: October 18, 2003, 05:09:47 AM »
Metropolitan?

T_MacWood

Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #23 on: October 18, 2003, 12:01:41 PM »
TE
You made an interesting comment above, that Flynn,  could've and would've been the real "transition" architect between the two distinctly different eras (pre-WW2 vs post WW2). Please explain.

TEPaul

Re:Would Wilson be more apprecited...
« Reply #24 on: October 18, 2003, 01:29:45 PM »
Tom MacW:

Well, I just see Flynn's style of architecture as somethng that was evolving as golf was evolving and apparently into a bit more of the aerial game in various ways. Some of his later designs were starting to squeeze in green approach areas with bunkering on either side of green fronts. There seemed to have been a loose formula to that as the holes varied in length. Flynn, like some of his other early contemporaries, perhaps borne out of the original "Philadelphia School of architecture", were getting clearly into "shot testing" and probably the precusor to the uniquely American "Championship" course in some projects (not all). Obviously clients may have been calling for this and one can see that these courses were ones that were going to get the championships and did!

Flynn was quite innovative, believing in "elasiticity" of routing length, basically architecturally framing holes with a technique of often saddling greens, for instance (with what we call "pulling up strings"), which contributed to an almost scientific combination of visibility, playability and efficient drainage. Flynn was experimenting with the use of trees in many ways, even in strategy. He was also experimenting with the idea of "scientific" architecture which Tillinghast wrote about (and Flynn also to an extent) of hazard placement and such to conform to the games and strategies of various levels of players etc. Flynn very much noodled over how architecture (scientific architecture) could better contribute to a more understandable relationship of how various levels of golfers interacted in their various playing of the game together as to more equitable result.

Flynn in an attempt to counter-act what he perceived to be a distance problem that was impending even came up with a few unique "maintenance meld" suggestions such as irrigating tee shot landing areas and drying out approaches!! He recommended things such as forward tees instead of Ladies tees so a particular level of male golfer would be more inclined to use them.

Flynn was evolving with the game or maybe even evolving the game in interesting ways with his architecture! Many of the things he came up with and experimented with took shape in various ways in the decades to come. But basically Flynn should be considered a "Golden Age" pre-WW2 architect because that's the era he lived and worked in (he died in 1945). But the game was transitioning some even in the late 1920s to show evidence of things to come decades later in the so-called Modern Age.

That's why I call Flynn possibly the real potential "transition architect". He didn't live into the next era though. But if he had I just wonder what his continuing influence would have been and what would've resulted.

One thing Flynn never really was and apparently never really wanted to be was a high production architect such as Ross.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2003, 01:31:03 PM by TEPaul »