RTJ Jr Article

[Tim Gallant]

https://golf.com/travel/robert-trent-jones-junior-unfiltered/

Really nice to see a piece on RTJ Jr from GOLF. He's not one that makes the rounds on social media, podcasts, etc, so it was nice to read his thoughts on GCA both past and present.

Some excerpts that I found interesting:

His other quibbles are strictly architectural. His father’s mantra was “hard par, easy bogey.” Recent updates of his father’s work, Bobby believes, have pretty much turned that thinking on its head.

“Now, it’s become easy par, hard bogey, and not for the
better,” Jones says.

“Trees provide shade, they can enhance strategy and they are carbon sinks,” Jones says. “If anything, plant more of them.”

“There’s a romanticized idea of the so-called Golden Age, and it bothers me, in part, because it suggests that nothing worthy has come since,” Jones says. “If that was the Golden Age, we must have had a Platinum Age after, because we’ve had a great variety of responses from architects like Fazio, Nicklaus, my brother and my father. I’d also add myself to that list.”

[Tommy Williamsen]

Those were a few interesting excerpts. Many courses built in the 80s and 90s were hard par, easy double bogey. In the last decade or so, it is back to hard par easy bogey.


It is interesting that he included his brother as part of the platinum age, given their differences.

[Marty Bonnar]

The Ego has Landed.

[Tom_Doak]

I found it kinda funny that the first paragraph with which Bobby takes exception, is basically Ran’s intro to this web site.

[Connor Lewis]

A fascinating article.


To me, golf courses are living breathing works of art and at the heart of it, [size=78%]all art is subjective. As someone who is well read, like Mr. Jones, he must also appreciate that art evolves with the times. [/size]



There are things that ring true in his comments- the Jones family, does in fact, get pigeonholed - I think Peachtree is an absolute wonder and (though I may be in the minority here) I think RTJS’ changes to ANGC worked and that the 16th is a better hole for those changes (especially for a televised event like the Masters). I also enjoy RTJJ’s Chambers Bay.


I think what gets lost in his argument for recognition, are the changes the Jones Institution made to courses for the sake of being hard- for seeking severe penalty- for all but eliminating the chance to save par (again my take).


I found the article entertaining and a bit sad. I disagree with his assessment that he and the golf course architects he named, lived in the Platinum Age of Golf Design, which to me, it seems had a lot more to do with name recognition than actual design principles (harsh take). I might argue that if such era exists that we live in it now- an era of restoration, of wild ideas and an era that seems to be open to embracing new names and new ideas. For the record, I am not claiming this era is better than the Golden Age, as a historian that wouid be silly, but it certainly could be on par with it.


In the end we have a tendency to judge our forefathers by the standards of today, just as it seems, they judge us by the standards of their day.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I can't disagree with the point on trees, Today we often speak of tree removal with too broad of a brush, or should I say chainsaw. A course with absolutely zero trees can be be just as bad as a course completely choked with trees.

While we can look to the links courses and their virtually treeless landscape for inspiration, it would be disingenuous to apply the native aspects of links land everywhere golf is played. A course that is 100% devoid of trees in a region that is natively covered in trees is a foreign and artificial application of golf. It would be like showing up at St. Andrews with the intent to plant 10,000 trees across the old course.

Beyond the aspects of building course within the native environment, Trees do provide benefits to courses that can be challenging to replicate elsewhere. They provide shade to help keep players cool during hot summer days, they provide security and from arrant play, sound management from neighboring properties, and possibly most importantly they provide a strategic element to the aerial game.

Considering how much modern golf is an aerial game, the challenge a tree provides to the game is virtually unmatched.

Granted, much like a course with 1,000 bunkers, there is a point of over-saturation. On sites where trees are common, tree usage should be liberal when they are not on or near the route of play, and strategic when they may impact that route of play. While not perfect, a place that does manage this well is Augusta. Even if many feel the property is well over tree'd.

[Ian Andrew]

The photo in the article was fabulous.

I've always liked Bobby. I played Pebble Beach with him at my first ASGCA event. First time we ever met. We got him telling stories - largely to put his phone away - but once he was in storyteller mode I was grateful. They were not boastful, but rather some hilarious construction and travel stories - most poking fun at himself. We had a fabulous afternoon with him. We got a poem and he appreciated being poked fun at in a satire done the day before. On the ASGCA Scotland trip, he engaged my wife in a detailed conversation about Scottish history. It was an awesome listen because he knew my wife's family history very well.

I've had architecture conversations with him. Others members have baffled me with their inflexible opinions on golf design. Bobby is much more open to discussing different ideas and being adaptive to different approaches. Love or hate his work - well that's up to you - he is a really nice man. I wish he did things slightly differently at Chambers Bay  with the routing, I liked it conceptually and found it fun to play.

I wish someone would write a book about the building of Spyglass Hill, it was Jay Morrish's first golf course project, working for RTJ. I expect there's a lot of stories considering who was there. I did talk to Jay about the project a bit before he passed away.

[Ian Andrew]

Regarding his comment on trees:

In 2005 or 2006, as part of a project, I did the math for "trees vs. no trees" by using carbon footprint calculations for all the inputs required to address a shady site. Mowing was obviously a wash. My best case was a UK based approach to maintenance assuming no shade, the correct grass and proper drainage. My worse case was a typical parkland course with a green framed by trees on three sides. I used existing courses in my area and calculated.

Long grass and no shade around greens is essentially a wash with a partially shaded green. But nobody in approvals wants to hear that, because for them trees are "carbon sinks" and golf is not. But if you add up the additional inputs required and add their footprints it changes the leger. It begins with the footprint for obtaining the raw materials, extends to production and includes delivery. This can all be calculated. I used to have a guide put out by an organization that was of great assistance in working this all out. I gave a talk on this in 2008 in Calgary. 

I gave up because when I approach people in approvals, they thought I was making it all up. They wanted to increase the overall canopy of the city. Period. I find everyone who wants maximum trees on golf courses is not thinking big enough to understand you want maximum environmental benefit instead.

[Ben Stephens]

The photo in the article was fabulous.

I've always liked Bobby. I played Pebble Beach with him at my first ASGCA event. First time we ever met. We got him telling stories - largely to put his phone away - but once he was in storyteller mode I was grateful. They were not boastful, but rather some hilarious construction and travel stories - most poking fun at himself. We had a fabulous afternoon with him. We got a poem and he appreciated being poked fun at in a satire done the day before. On the ASGCA Scotland trip, he engaged my wife in a detailed conversation about Scottish history. It was an awesome listen because he knew my wife's family history very well.

I've had architecture conversations with him. Others members have baffled me with their inflexible opinions on golf design. Bobby is much more open to discussing different ideas and being adaptive to different approaches. Love or hate his work - well that's up to you - he is a really nice man. I wish he did things slightly differently at Chambers Bay  with the routing, I liked it conceptually and found it fun to play.

I wish someone would write a book about the building of Spyglass Hill, it was Jay Morrish's first golf course project, working for RTJ. I expect there's a lot of stories considering who was there. I did talk to Jay about the project a bit before he passed away.

Hi Ian,




Would love to meet Bobby if I have the opportunity - Forrest Richardson is another with great stories from experience especially about the yellow ball!.


I am fortunate to have a Golf By Design book which has really nice sketches signed by Bobby - thanks to Mike Ventura a friend of my cousin when they were building the Wentwood Hills course at the Celtic Manor.


Wow a book on Spyglass would be really interesting - could you do it with Bobbys help?




Cheers
Ben

[Max Prokopy]

Regarding his comment on trees:

In 2005 or 2006, as part of a project, I did the math for "trees vs. no trees" by using carbon footprint calculations for all the inputs required to address a shady site. Mowing was obviously a wash. My best case was a UK based approach to maintenance assuming no shade, the correct grass and proper drainage. My worse case was a typical parkland course with a green framed by trees on three sides. I used existing courses in my area and calculated.

Long grass and no shade around greens is essentially a wash with a partially shaded green. But nobody in approvals wants to hear that, because for them trees are "carbon sinks" and golf is not. But if you add up the additional inputs required and add their footprints it changes the leger. It begins with the footprint for obtaining the raw materials, extends to production and includes delivery. This can all be calculated. I used to have a guide put out by an organization that was of great assistance in working this all out. I gave a talk on this in 2008 in Calgary. 

I gave up because when I approach people in approvals, they thought I was making it all up. They wanted to increase the overall canopy of the city. Period. I find everyone who wants maximum trees on golf courses is not thinking big enough to understand you want maximum environmental benefit instead.

Ian, thank you for these two posts.  While never much of a fan of his work, I also know there is much more to a person than that.  He did my local course, the NYC muni Marine Park.  It was a hell of a job to build on an old dump 60 years ago in nowhere Brooklyn, but the course is in good condition, the fairways are generous, and the challenge increases at the greens. 


Also, thank you for your environmental contributions.  There are so many anti-science politics-based policies...

[Charlie Goerges]

Regarding his comment on trees:

In 2005 or 2006, as part of a project, I did the math for "trees vs. no trees" by using carbon footprint calculations for all the inputs required to address a shady site. Mowing was obviously a wash. My best case was a UK based approach to maintenance assuming no shade, the correct grass and proper drainage. My worse case was a typical parkland course with a green framed by trees on three sides. I used existing courses in my area and calculated.

Long grass and no shade around greens is essentially a wash with a partially shaded green. But nobody in approvals wants to hear that, because for them trees are "carbon sinks" and golf is not. But if you add up the additional inputs required and add their footprints it changes the leger. It begins with the footprint for obtaining the raw materials, extends to production and includes delivery. This can all be calculated. I used to have a guide put out by an organization that was of great assistance in working this all out. I gave a talk on this in 2008 in Calgary. 

I gave up because when I approach people in approvals, they thought I was making it all up. They wanted to increase the overall canopy of the city. Period. I find everyone who wants maximum trees on golf courses is not thinking big enough to understand you want maximum environmental benefit instead.

It seems like an easy mistake for people to make... If the forest is better than the golf course, then a golf course with more trees is better than one with fewer. I'm sure your numbers show that not to be the case. To me, the best case for trees on the course is to use them well. Trees can be beautiful, trees can give shade, and trees can provide challenge. We should try to use them well for those purposes.