[Mike Mosely]

Can someone who knows, please teach us all what remains of Donald Ross's work?  Also, what's GOOD about the changes by the Joneses?  What changes DON'T you like as well?  

Also, what are the best greens?

Thanks.

[Brett Hochstein]

I have also wondered this as well, especially with regard to the greens.  I have guesses, but I know not much for sure.  The only thing I can really say is that the original routing remains as well as the locations of a decent amount bunkers.  As far as the size, form, and function of those bunkers, I'm not so sure...

I believe his original plan drawing is in his book "Golf is my Game."  Has anyone else seen it?

There are some great images in there as well.  The place really was a lot different in look, and it was better in my opinion as it seemed to reflect the land much more.  The "scooped out pits" for bunkers paralleled the scale and form of the open, rolling hills.  It is a rare instance that I find these types of bunkers, which are a little bit bland, to really work well and be preferable to other forms.

(btw, is there anyway to put only certain words in italics?  i feel like an idiot using quotes for a title)  

[Brett Hochstein]

I would also add that the 'tough' mentality is still there.  From what I understand in reading, the course was meant to be tough--it was one of the longest of its time and something like par 75, I believe, with some of the most tilted greens and deepest bunkers around.

I believe that the original difficulty was a different animal though, containing more options and forgiveness in comparion to the wasp-waisted fairways and guarded greens of today.  Does anyone have any opinions or insight to this?

[Sean_A]

The routing is the same & the greens are something like 90% the same (or so I have been told).  I think the main changes to some of the greens have been their reduction size.  Originally, some of the greens had slopes which kicked balls to lower areas of the green or just off - leaving a tough putt or running chip.  Now, many slopes kick balls into harsh rough leaving a wedge hack.  Other than the land itself (which is excellent for a course), the greens and routing are the two main things which go into a course so I gotta believe a load of Ross is still there.  

Trees aren't really an issue.  This may be due to Dutch Elm disease which ravished Michigan courses for about 15 years in the 50s & 60s.  Though I do believe that wonderful interior views of the property are compromised because of trees, many of which are not attractive.  

The two main differences in the character of OH from the days of Ross are the fairway bunkering and the rough.  Both serve the modern ideal of narrowing the golf course.  There are something like seven holes with the double sided bunkering and a few others hemmed in by a tree or water on one side and bunkering on the other.  The rough is ever present.  Originally, Ross had less bunkers and more were diagonal (with a few sort of centreline bunkers) in nature.

The course really wasn't that difficult shortly after it opened with a par of 75 because there was a generous amount of par 5s.  Even in the 37 Open Guldahl was something like -7 with a par of 288.  This is what prompted the changes for the 1951 Open.  The USGA stepped in and has been doing this more or less since.  

I get the impression that the members enjoy the "monster" reputation, but I wonder when they will say enough is enough.  Ross was clever in that he made the course very expandable and in fact increased the length of the course to retain par 5s when he learned that the USGA was going to change the distance to par "recommendations".  Despite the general wishes of Ross, two of the par 5s were made into par 4s for the 1951 Open.  Perhaps the death of Ross in 1948 gave the USGA a green light to do as they wished.  Now, however, there is no more room left.  The course has been pushed to some 7400 yards (from its original 6600 yards for tournament play) with harsh rough and narrow fairways.  There isn't much else that can be done to minimize the ideals of Ross.

Ciao

[Phil_the_Author]

There were some pretty substantial changes made to the course in 1935-36.

Tilly was asked by the club to visit it during his PGA Course Consultation tour and did so on 2 occasions. It is interesting to note how highly he viewed the course. He wrote to george Jacobus that "This is a great course designed over twenty years ago and the scene of the National Open of 1924..."

The results of his visits were recommendations to lengthen several holes and this was accomplished by building new tees. Interestingly, "The Committee," as Tilly referred to the club's championship committee, recommended lengthening the 4th hole and did so over Tilly's objections. "Already the committee has lengthened five holes by building new teeing grounds, certainly benefiting the second, eighth, fourteenth (a shortened hole) and the eighteenth. However I did not concur with them in the opinion that it had helped the fourth."

He further observed that the 14th was the only "weak hole" on the course and recommended a redesign. He wrote, "The fourteenth is the one really weak hole and I gave them a suggestion for a new fairway, extending it over a more interesting break of ground to the left of the present, and a new green site."

I have always been curious as to whether the work on this hole was ever done.

In addition to the above, he recommended the removal of a number of "Duffer's Headache" fairway bunkers.

What is most fascinating about this, at least to me, is that Tilly was asked to do this even though Ross was healthy and able. Was it the price? Tilly charged nothing as it was part of the PGA of America's Course Consultation Tour for PGA Pro's & their courses.

This information is important on a number of levels. First from the architectural evolution of the course, but also as it is an example of why the USGA took over course prep and setup for its championships beginning after WWII.

Before then, as in the case of Oakland Hills, it was the responsibility of the local club's own championship committee. This resulted in many inconsistencies and, on a number of occasions, poorly thought out and even unfair setups.

For as much criticism as the USGA has taken in the past years for mistakes in course setup, for the most part these are far fewer and less severe and impactful as when the local club's controlled this.

[Sean_A]

Philip

I recalled the section in your book dealing with Tilly's visit to OH.  However, I can't find any evidence that the short bunkers were removed on the suggestion of Tillie.  As is hinted at concerning #14, Tillie didn't seem to revisit OH to check up on things.  Is it possible that Jones used some of Tillie's ideas for the 1951 Open changes?  I suspect the lengthening of the tees was a no brainer as Ross left space on many holes just so they could be lengthened.  Did Tilly recommend moving bunkers further up the fairways which were later implimented by Jones?

I think the criticism levelled against the USGA is as much about course setup as changing (sometimes permanently) the playing characteristics of the course.  I believe OH is a prime example of this.

Ciao

[Phil_the_Author]

Sean,

As far as can be found out, Tilly never returned. I have always been fascinated with why he was asked and Ross wasn't. I also found it interesting that the committee lengthened the 4th hole despite Tilly strong suggestions against it.

There is nothing written yet found to suggest that Tilly recommended moving any bunkers forward.

By the way, of all of his contemporaries, Ross was probably the architect whose work Tilly liked the most.

As far as Jones implementing some of Tilly's suggestions, I don't believe so. Jones was more than well established and confident in his own right. In addition, we are talking 15+ years later. I am pretty certain that the work that he did was all his own ideas.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

As far as can be found out, Tilly never returned. I have always been fascinated with why he was asked and Ross wasn't. I also found it interesting that the committee lengthened the 4th hole despite Tilly strong suggestions against it.

There is nothing written yet found to suggest that Tilly recommended moving any bunkers forward.

By the way, of all of his contemporaries, Ross was probably the architect whose work Tilly liked the most.

As far as Jones implementing some of Tilly's suggestions, I don't believe so. Jones was more than well established and confident in his own right. In addition, we are talking 15+ years later. I am pretty certain that the work that he did was all his own ideas.

I think by 1936 Ross's design firm was in trouble.  I reckon Ross was involved with some 30 courses from 36 until his death including a the few at Pinehurst, remodels (which may not have been as extensive as some believe) and those he probably had little to do with once the war hit.  To put this in perspective, Ross was involved with 6 times that many courses in the 12 previous years from 1924-1935.  The languishing depression had taken its toll even to the point where Ross took a pay cut at Pinehurst.  He didn't travel much Tillie was struggling for work as well and was very glad to get the PGA gig.  I suspect money had a lot to do with a many of the decisions made by clubs in the 30s & 40s.

Ciao  

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

The corset style bunkering that flanks many of the fairways at OH / South is a RTJ addition.

It is often predictable in its style and in placement / form.

I also think the idea in playing the final hole as a par-4 is nearly impossible given the manner by which the hole bends to the right but the fairways slopes left. Ask Tom Lehman what he thinks of the hole / re: '97 US Open.

[Jason Topp]

Here is a link to a USGA article explaining the changes for the 1951 US Open

http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1950s/1951/510607.pdf

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()