I've been reading Herbert Warren Wind's Following Through, a compilation of his work from The New Yorker. In a story following the 1979 U.S. Open at Inverness, Wind mentioned this about the course when it held the 1920 Open:
"From the old golf hands who attended this Open (1920), I gather that while Inverness proved to be a fairly testing layout, spread over nice rolling terrain, it struck no one as a truly great course. For one thing, its routing was uninspired: No fewer than eight holes (the second, the eleventh, the twelfth, the fourteenth, the fifteenth, the sixteenth, the seventeenth and the sixth) ran more or less parallel to each other. Certainly it was not at all in the same class as the two courses that are today (in 1979) considered Ross's masterpieces - Seminole, in North Palm Beach, which was completed in 1929, and his wonderful wholesale revision of Pinehurst No. 2..."
Thoughts?
I think Wind makes a tough comparison. In 1920, Inverness would have likely been a greater course than Pinehurst with its sand greens. Comparing the 1920 version of Inverness to a course Ross spent every year of his life at seems like an unfair comparison. Seminole was built 9 years later than Inverness and Ross was given a large budget and a clean slate on terrific land.
Inverness was a remodeled Ross course, not a Ross original, like Pinehurst and Seminole. Ross likely inherited some of the routing from the previous Inverness course. Inverness was interested in hosting national championships, which perhaps led the club to follow more of a penal approach of golf architecture. The 1931 layout looks similar to Oakmont with bunkers everywhere. Maybe it was the repetition of bunkers and streams on these parallel holes that gave the players the mindset that it wasn’t truly great?
In any case, since 1920, the original second hole and sixth holes have been changed to longer doglegs which aren’t as parallel as they once were. I also get the feeling from the Inverness course tour that viewing matches was a consideration for these closing holes. Perhaps it was easier for the crowds to follow the action on these parallel holes? As the matches would come to an end, this piece of property seems to have a natural amphitheater offering good viewing lines for those watching the matches.
The routing seems to be improved with this latest renovation. The routing is also very symmetrical now, which allows for different sequencing of holes. If the club ever decided they don’t like having all of those parallel holes together, they could change the sequence of holes. You could play 1-5, then play 15 and 16, then jump over to 8 and play 8 and 9 in. On the back you could play 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Jump down to 5 and 6 then play 17 and 18 to finish. There are other options as well if they chose to use the 10th as the starting hole. I’m not saying the club should mess with their historical starting and finishing holes , but there are other options to playing the course with the new routing.
Is it a truly great course? I don’t know, I have never played it. It’s clearly not ranked as high as Pinehurst and Seminole, so Wind’s critique still hold true. However, if you are aware of its history, Inverness Club has proved over the last 100 years to be a truly great venue in respect to hosting national championships for the best players in the world.