Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mike_Sweeney on September 20, 2004, 12:53:28 PM
-
I have not played either and I really am interested in the comparison. Aronimink has been widely praised here for the work that Ron Pritchard did to "take the course back to its Ross origins and remove RTJ's work."
Oakland Hills, deservedly so IMHO, is being widely praised yet much of RTJ's redo of a the original Ross is still there, or so it appears when you see the lake on #16 "the signature hole". I assume that is an RTJ lake.
Why does Oakland Hills work so well as a blending of architects or is there something else ?
-
mike
i love oakland hills - it's in my personal top 10 - but i believe if oakland hills did a thoughtful ross restoration, along the lines of what aronimink did, with a specialist like ron prichard (no T!!), it would be an even better golf course!
-
I believe in Geoff Shackelford's book, The Golden Age, there is a great picture of the original Ross routing. Apparently, RTJ did not mess with the Ross greens, but he did change 6 and 7 a lot, and put bunkers in to pinch down the fairways on many if not most of the holes. If I recall, though, 16 always had the pond.
-
Mike,
Greg's right. If I'm not mistaken, the pond was on the property when Ross arrived at Oakland Hills. And it was part of Ross' original design of the 16th hole.
I don't think you can compare Prichard's redo of Aronimink to a prospective "restoration" of Oakland Hills South. RTJ's work at Oakland Hills is more than 50 years old. On the other hand, RTJ's redo of Aronimink was a late 1980s or early 1990s undertaking with Roger Rulewich.
RTJ's Oakland Hills has history on its side these days.
-
jeff
while that may be true, i still think OH would be even better with a Prichard restoration!
-
I can't disagree, Paul. But, as you know, it's not going to happen. Principally because RTJ's work has history on its side.
I mean, think about it. Ross' design existed from 1916-1950. That's only 34 years. RTJ's Oakland Hills is 53 years old (1951-2004).
-
jeff
sadly, you are probably correct
:'(
-
The original Oakland Hills had to be one of Ross's best early designs. Compared to the RTJ monster it possessed much more variety and strategic interest (including a number of very large sand flashed bunkers). That being said I would not recommend it be restored. The RTJ redesign is the more architecturally significant, the more historically significant. You may not be a fan of the architectural era it stimulated but the fact remains it did change the course of history (and was the springboard for RTJ). And for that reason IMO it should be preserved.
Unfortunately today the course has lost the wild craggly rough-hewn look it had when RTJ redesigned it--the same look the course has had more or less for decades (minus the twelve inch hay). I'm not sure who is responsible for the present clean edges and soft curves, but it is sad what has become of the Monster. (Jeff is right, the pond on #16 was part of Ross's course)
-
Tom,
I have to say that was not the answer that I was expecting from you. Thanks
-
This is an excellent thread to compare those two courses. I wish I could participate but I can't because I only know one of them. Never been to Oakland Hills.
-
Mike Sweeney:
If I'm not mistaken I believe Tom MacWood may've just returned from finally getting out on the road and seeing some courses in person instead of just looking at them in old magazine and newspaper articles so that might account for why he's now saying a few things that are unexpected by you. ;)
-
Mike/TE
I've actually stated more than once that although I admire Ross's Oakland Hills design, RTJ's was the more important design...the last time I think was on the Society to Protect Golf Architecture thread.
-
Tom makes a good point about the look of RTJ's Oakland Hills.
I'm on record as not being a big fan of the squished Oakland Hills layout of today. However, photos taken during the 1951 US Open show a very rough hewn Oakland Hills, with a look most of us traditionalists love. The bunkers were very rugged, and attractive.
If anything, I guess, perhaps RTJ's Oakland Hills should truly be restored. Don't forget, there have been changes made since 1951. Particularly to the bunker style, shape, and locations.
-
Tom MacWood:
I realize that! Since your new campaign to protect all classic architecture and to be the world's sole and primary advocate for all dead classic architects I do realize you're a whole new man with a whole new outlook! And I do realize you're out to exterminate all golf architectural improvement and "improvers" wherever they may be.
-
Tom MacW:
But seriously, I'd truly like to know why you may think the RTJ evolution of Oakland Hills may be something very legitimately worth preserving (dare I say restoring?). And why, if it were possible to do, it may not be worth restoring some of the original Ross to that course.
I'm certainly no denigrator of RTJ or his work--to be frank I don't know it well. I do have some self interest in what I say as there are a few holes at GMGC that parts of are RTJ. Most in the club seem to not like the RTJ much but frankly I do---to some extent.
And then there's Aroninimink and any redesigning he may have done there. Would you say that any of that should've been preserved rather than what the club just did by restoring back to Donald Ross's drawings?
-
Tom,
Perhaps I'm out of turn here, but I think it's interesting to note that from what I've gathered to date, RTJ's Oakland Hills of 1951 was far more attractive (most notably bunkers, and definitely a few hundred fewer trees) than the South course of today.
Is a "restoration", then, in order? Maybe...
-
RTJ's Monster was a landmark design in golf architecture history. Whatever your opinion of the 'modern' era, the Monster sparked the revolution of the 50's and 60's--well bunkered landing zones (free-form) and greens often guarded by wing bunkers (and sadly the redesign of many older courses). The publicity generated from the Open at Oakland Hills really made RTJ, and few can argue he didn't have an enormous impact on golf architecture. Oakland Hill's architectural prestige is linked to the Monster.
I don't think anyone would put his work at Aroninink and GM in the same catagory as his historic redesign of Oakland Hills. For decades OH's has been considered one of the elite golf courses in this country, I'm not sure you could say the same for the others.
-
Tom MacWood:
That's an interesting description of Oakland Hills as a very significant course in the evolution of American architecture due to RTJ's redesigning of it into the so-called "Monster".
I happen to agree with you---eg that the redeisigned of Ross's Oakland Hills course by RTJ is a significant course in American architecture---certainly one tested by significant tournament play. For those very reasons it would seem that Oakland Hills as redesigned by RTJ should be preserved and perhaps even restored if it has devolved in some way since the early 50s or 70s or whatever.
However, I'm interested in your comparison of RTJ's work on Ross's Aronimink (we can forget about what RTJ did at GMGC, or forget about GMGC as a comparison altogether as it was built (or partially redesigned by RTJ) as a wholly different type of course for a different purpose). What do you know of RTJ's work at Aronimink that leads you to believe that Aronimink under RTJ's redesign did not or would not compare favorably as a significant architectural course to what RTJ did with Oakland Hills?
I think it's quite interesting that RTJ apparently did approximately the same type of redesign work at Aroninmink as he did at Oakland Hills including not much touching the original Ross greens on either. Do you think Oakland Hills is more significant and should have its RTJ redesigned architecture preserved because it happened to be the first of RTJ's massive redesigning and approximately 38 years earlier than Aronimink?
-
Aronimink was among a long line of subsequent redesigns by RTJ for major championships. It was neither the artistic or innovative success of OH--especially when you consider the radical Ross design it altered.
-
Tom MacWood:
You should probably be aware that RTJ's redesign of Aronimink didn't exactly alter the 'radical Ross design' (as you call it) of Aronimink. RTJ's redesign of Aronimink, however, may have altered the redesigns of Aronimink by Dick Wilson in the early 1960s and the Fazios in the late 1970s! ;)
What was it about Aronimink that makes you label the course a "radical Ross design"? Was it the fact that the course was routed and designed by Donald Ross to potentially be basically a 7,000 yard par 70 ultra championship design in the late 1920s or is it that you're trying to claim again that the fact that his foreman, J.B McGovern, redesigned Ross's bunkering into sets of 2 and 3 instead of Ross's single placement bunkers made Aronimink a "radical Ross design"?
If it's the latter, I congratulate you on your exemplary intransigence for failing to accept the truth of the evolution of Aroninmink from the club and a very well known restoration architect who may not know more than you do about most things to do with classic archtiecture although they and he very well know more than you do about the evolution of the architecture of Aronimink! ;)
-
Hypothetical for the Toms & Jeff:
It is 2015 and The Ocean Course @ Kiawah has still not secured The PGA or US Open that they covet. Through the natural course of heavy resort play and coastal storms, it is determined by management that The Ocean Course needs upgrading. Pete Dye has retired or passed away, and management decides to bring in former Dye associates Jack Nicklaus and Tom Doak (based on their successful partnership at seaside Sebonack) to "upgrade" the course in order to finally secure that Major. How should Tom & Jack handle the "upgrade" ?
It is a historic course that has held a Ryder Cup and it has already been changed by Pete Dye himself.
-
TE
Speaking of Aronimink, has Ron yet shared with you his proof that the course was originally constructed based upon Ross's rough drawings? That certainly would clear up this entire controversy.
Mike
That might be a better question for Doak.
-
"TE
Speaking of Aronimink, has Ron yet shared with you his proof that the course was originally constructed based upon Ross's rough drawings? That certainly would clear up this entire controversy."
Tom MacW:
Yes he has. The proof is at his office but he's shared with me what it's about. Some of it and the deduction behind it I've even shared with you on here but for the apparently standard reason you appear to have not noticed or not understood it. Such is life, I guess. Neither Ron Prichard, nor I, nor Aronimink apparently really care that much to spend all that much time contributing to the on-going architecture education of Tom MacWood. You obviously have eyes and ears but it appears to most of us you don't see or hear all that well! But don't give up hope. ;)
-
TE
I'm aware of the speculation that you and he have leaned upon, but I thought you said he had definitive proof--in the form of a championship program or something--that showed the course was originally constructed according to Ross's rough sketches. Have you seen this program, or am I confused about that story?
-
Tom:
No, you're not confused about the story. Ron Prichard has the tournament program of early Aronimink in his office. He said, I believe, something like the tournament program also has an advertisement for nearby Jeffersonville G.C, believed by those who'd know to be constructed by J.B. McGovern and very likely never seen by Donald Ross. The bunkering of Jeffersonville, according to Ron had those 2-3 set bunkers. According to Forse Design, there're a few other Ross courses in the Northeast that also had those 2-3 set style bunkers. Ron Prichard and Forse Design should be discussing this soon but according to Ron Prichard those courses were very likely enough in the area and on the schedule of Ross foreman J.B. McGovern.
The bunkering of Aronimink (or any of those 2-3 set style) were perhaps different in the fact that they were sets of 2-3 where ordinarily Ross designed one. But it's definitely not a certainty, or even likely, that they were of the "sand flashed all the way up the face" style that you seem to believe. The greater liklehood is that those 2-3 set bunkers were partially grassed down faces common to Ross's hand and if you look closely at that early photo you produced on here of the 1st hole of Aronimink you should be able to detect that.
-
I have not played either and I really am interested in the comparison. Aronimink has been widely praised here for the work that Ron Pritchard did to "take the course back to its Ross origins and remove RTJ's work."
Oakland Hills, deservedly so IMHO, is being widely praised yet much of RTJ's redo of a the original Ross is still there, or so it appears when you see the lake on #16 "the signature hole". I assume that is an RTJ lake.
Why does Oakland Hills work so well as a blending of architects or is there something else ?
Mike:
Have never played Oakland Hills so I cannot comment on a comparison. However as a member of Aronimink I noticed quite of few RTJ items at Oakland Hills that were similar to some things Aronimink had prior to the restoration such as bunkers that were supposed to pinch the fairways, etc.
Fairways and Greens,
Dave
-
Mike Sweeney:
That is a very, very, very interesting, albeit hypothetical, question re: the Ocean Couse scenario. A very sticky one too for us "classicalists". In fact, it's a question I've been struggling with, very much, while trying to complete my forthcoming book, tentatively titled "Preserving the World's Great Golf Courses".
Pete Dye is pretty clear with his opinion that golf courses need to be updated to keep apace with an ever-changing game. He's already made significant changes to a number of his own original designs, including Crooked Stick, Harbortown, and the Ocean Course for this very reason.
I'm certainly not trying to speak for Mr. Dye, but I think if further developments in playing equipment technologies and player development warranted an upgrading at the Ocean Course in order to host an event the Kiawah Island Resort was keen to host, he would be for it. Even if he wasn't around and Doak or Nicklaus undertook such a renovation.
There's no doubt, too, the fact that Donald Ross was ready to redo his 1916-17 design at Oakland Hills some 40 years later says something about the game changing and the need to keep courses apace.
Back to the Ocean course... if the PGA Tour pros of 2015 are driving the ball 500 yards, I'd hope that Doak or Nicklaus or whoever was called in to renovate the Ocean Course would be sensitive to Dye's original design, style, and vision, while at the same time making changes necessary to challenge the world's best players.
In essence, the most successful restorative-based work completed at classic courses to-date has followed that basic philosophy.
-
According to Brian Hewitt on The Golf Channel tonight, Rees Jones will make changes to Oakland Hills for the 2008 PGA Championship "to put teeth back into the Monster." Indications are that Rees will lengthen several holes by moving the greens (holes 2,3 and 4 likely). According to Hewitt, Rees said that he would move, but not redesign the greens -- that he planned to copy the greens, which he attributed to his father (not Donald Ross). My understanding was that RTJ "recognized the genius" of the greens and left them intact when he created the "monster." Hewitt also noted that Nicklaus called the greens at Oakland Hills the best set of greens in America.
-
Very interesting report, Greg.
I've visited Oakland Hills many times. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how 2 and 4 greens could logically be moved back. And, as Rees Jones knows, it's easier to claim you're going to duplicate that contour than to actually pull it off.
Interesting, too, that Rees attributes those greens to his dad. Isn't it on record that the basic structure of the greens was left untouched during RTJ's renovation?
-
I have a book at home, can't remember which one it is, that basically states that RTJ was brilliant for recognizing the greatness of the Ross greens, "leaving them largely intact." During the Ryder Cup last week, NBC also opened a segment noting that the greens were almost unaltered from how Ross designed them over 80 years ago.
-
This is an excellent thread to compare those two courses. I wish I could participate but I can't because I only know one of them. Never been to Oakland Hills.
We knew you would somehow find a way.
-
Thanks rg--that just shows how observant you really are.
-
I find the two of them very similar, and this is a clever thread.
I do like them both, but will likely not seek out either again. As an architect, there is little I really want to take from either one.
They are perfect for tournyments, where their intensity and demands are well suited, but neither catches the eye or the heart. Holes also begin to blend too easily into each other through the demands and the architecture.
Rather than being left impressed or enticed, you are left bruised and beaten by their intensity.
-
In conversation tonight with Ron Prichard, he pointed out to me that he felt that RTJ Sr. had enough respect for Donald Ross' greens at Oakland Hills that he pretty much left well-enough alone.
-
Paul:
That's apparently the thinking at Aronimink too.
-
tom
that is correct, sir!
;)
-
Pete Dye is pretty clear with his opinion that golf courses need to be updated to keep apace with an ever-changing game. He's already made significant changes to a number of his own original designs, including Crooked Stick, Harbortown, and the Ocean Course for this very reason.
Actually, Pete came back to The Ocean Course for two reasons, neither of which had to do with making the course more challenging to tour players. The first was to make it less challenging to the average resort players. After the Ryder Cup, we were getting 6-6 1/2 hour rounds out there. Pete came back and reworked much of the areas around the green complexes so that if a player missed the green (a common occurance), they could actually find their ball and play it (if it was missed on the correct side). Secondly, he reclaimed many of the lines of the original course. As it sits on wind-swept dunes, the course tends to walk around on us. Over a period of a decade, it had changed quite a bit. Pete came back and restored many of the original bunker lines and green contors (and took out the contors that had developed on the tees due to blowing sand).
And, FYI, we sincerely believe we have a good chance of landing a major, maybe even in my lifetime! 8)
-
mike said:
>Pete came back to The Ocean Course for two reasons, neither of which had to do with making the course more challenging to tour players.
as i mentioned on another thread, prichard's restoration at beverly accomplished making it easier for the worst players, and harder for the better players.
>>Does the course play tougher?
from lots of conversations, i have been able to gather that the higher handicaps view the changes positively because they feel the wider corridors make the course play easier for them and the larger greens are easier to hit.
the good players are challenged by the new bunkering and feel the course plays tougher due to the increased length, and greater emphasis on having to 'think' their way around the course - proper positioning of shots for drives, approaches and correct portions of greens to hit - instead of only being concerned about hitting a dead-straight ball.
additionally, the loss of trees has been more than compensated in actually growing rough - especially in spots that used to be dirt due to a canopy if trees. this has challenged the low handicappers.
simply put, the high-handicappers feel it's easier and the low-handicappers find it tougher.
this is a pretty good combinatiin in my book.
-
Between the wind, the sand and the green complexes, not to mention the back tees that, from the middle, measure 7,937 yards, Pete didn't need to do anything to make The Ocean Course harder for the pros...