[T_MacWood]

TE
No one completely understood the courses' (Scarlet and Gray) history until I did the research and wrote the essay.

I concluded in my essay that the University had a rare opportunity...essentially they had a partially completed fifty year old golf course. A pure MacKenzie routing, greens staked out by his partner Maxwell, minimal bunkering added later (as an after thought and during the Tilly scare) that could easily be looked upon as temporary...albeit tempoary for fifty years. (The strength of the course IMO has always been the routing, follwed by the greens) The course had never been touched in all those decades it was just waiting there.

Based upon that, I see nothing wrong  with celebrating the fact that MacKenzie--history's greatest golf architect--had given the University a great gift, which they had only partially opened. In fact in hind sight perhaps we did not celebrate it enough.

Unfortunately because the University is also home to history's greatest golfer, the opening of the gift was deemed not so important.

There is always the Gray.

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

The course is more severely bunkered, mostly through expansion (and repositioning) of current bunkers. Although there are a few new bunkers as well, including three new bunkers located between the 9th and 10th holes that spell out OSU. It reminded me of the course at Myrtle Beach with the SC bunkers and the bunker at Disney World shaped like Mickey.

The "OSU" bunkers are already there, and have been for quite some time.  Although it sounds like none of the bunkering is Mac's it has basically been there all along.  I dont know if these new ones you talk about are in the same place or form as the original ones.  But most people would never know when you are playing the course.  

It wasnt until the friend of mine who is a member told me that I was in the "U" bunker of "OSU" many years ago that I had ever heard of it.   I couldnt even make out the other bunkers from where I stood that day. They apparently are quite spread out and only visible from an aerial view.

So its not some gimmicky thing Nicklaus came up with.

[T_MacWood]

"Is there something wrong with trying to keep "shot values"  for today's players somewhat comparable to the way they were to OSU's college team players when that golf course was built?"

That sounds like a question RTJ, Tom Fazio or Rees Jones would ask when talking about Oakland Hills, Oakmont, Riviera, Baltusrol, Quaker Ridge or ANGC. There is nothing wrong with it in theory, but the truth is, it is often given as an excuse to redesign an important course...and the constant pressure to keep up, is leading to more and more important courses being redesigned.

[T_MacWood]

"The "OSU" bunkers are already there, and have been for quite some time."

That was an old wife's tale....a suburban legend. There was/is a block O bunker out of play between the 15th of the Scarlet and the 16th of the Gray. No S or U bunker.  Do you like the SC bunker at Myrtle as well?

[TEPaul]

I asked:

"Is there something wrong with trying to keep "shot values"  for today's players somewhat comparable to the way they were to OSU's college team players when that golf course was built?"

Tom MacWood replied;

"That sounds like a question RTJ, Tom Fazio or Rees Jones would ask when talking about Oakland Hills, Oakmont, Riviera, Baltusrol, Quaker Ridge or ANGC. There is nothing wrong with it in theory, but the truth is, it is often given as an excuse to redesign an important course...and the constant pressure to keep up, is leading to more and more important courses being redesigned."

Tom:

I really didn't ask what that question sounds like, I asked;
"Is there something wrong with trying to keep "shot values"  for today's players somewhat comparable to the way they were to OSU's college team players when that golf course was built?"

Perhaps you subscribe to the notion that since an architect like RTJ, Fazio or Rees Jones did something wrong on an older golf course nothing should ever be tried on an older course again to keep it's shot values relevent but I sure don't. Is there any possible way you can conceive of improving OSU is what I'd like to hear, and not the warning again that even if that's possible it's too dangerous to try in your opinion, because someone might screw it up. Generally that's why  most of us attempt to hire architects who tend to do the right thing. When it came time for us to do something to our course RTJ was dead and Fazio and RJ were not considered for the job. Neither was Jack Nicklaus.
 

[Lou_Duran]

TMac,

I guess that you never pushed it a bit right on #s 1, 4, and 9.  Perhaps you just piped it down the center curving the ball in the shape of the dogleg.  Not me.  I fought from the ground level limbs of your beloved spruces all the while cursing the well-intentioned agronomists who planted them.  Even Weiskopf had the good sense to plant hardwoods though he was crazy in their placement.

As to my preference for Scarlet- Nicklaus or MacKenzie, I vote for the Good Doctor without hesitation.  The course is plenty long for me, and less rough, fewer trees, and beautiful scraggly bunkering is right up my alley.

Of course, Scarlet is no more MacKenzie than the U. of Michigan layout is, and perhaps it should not be characterized as such.  I know of several routings down here done by an architect who gets no attribution for the courses.  Even before the current renovation, Scarlet was also a longer, more muscular course than any of MacKenzie's I've played.

Unfortunately, people like you and me are not the only constituents of the facility.  Scarlet is first and foremost a competition course.  The Grey is for students and the less proficient.

They've been adding length on Scarlet by building new tees since at least the time I was there in the 1970s.  BTW, is there a card of the course on MacKenzie's routing?  I would be curious to learn what the original yardage was.

As a competition course, Scarlet has had to keep up with the changes in the game to remain a credible test.  ANGC has done the same thing, and it is often criticized here and elsewhere for the modifications.  Other MacKenzie courses like CPC, Valley, Meadow, Pasatiempo, Jockey, etc. seemed to have resisted making the changes, but these are not courses which regularly host high-level competitive events.

I too would be interested in your take on how the changes will specifically affect the course.  It seems like the new angle on #1 will actually make the hole easier by taking out part of the sharp dogleg right.  Ditto for the drive on #2 as the left bunker will not be in play as much.  A longer #17 might require a tall protective fence for the cars comming down Kenney (sp).  And a #18 tee south of #17 green will make the dogleg much sharper and difficult (I am assuming that they didn't take down the large trees in the inside corner).  
 

[TEPaul]

Lou:

It's interesting to hear the take of various people on tee length additions on various classic courses. Of course one always needs to mindful of which holes it can and does work well and which holes it doesn't but it seems to me from my own course to others including PVGC that the recent tee length additons are not particularly popular with members and other players who would never use them anyway but they generally are popular with the younger longer and better players who do use them. It seems to me that the recent tee additions at PVGC are generally popular with the longer and better players as they do feel the challenges of some of the originally intended "shot values" have been somewhat returned to them. Of course I think most everyone agrees that it's too bad to see this ever increasing distance but if that's the reality then they seem to want those "shot values" and intended demand to be maintained as much as possible. It would seem somewhat odd if they thought otherwise, wouldn't you say?

[Lou_Duran]

TomP,

Even TOC has been lengthened through the years.  As long as it is not possible or desirable to limit the advancements of technology, it seems to me that changing the length of the playing field is the least offensive way of maintaining the continuity of the game.

It is a bit like steroids in baseball, where the new records appear to be suspect and not worthy of comparison.  At least golf has tried to overcome this problem by extending some of the courses.

Purely from a design standpoint, I see no major problems with selectively adding distance where it can be done properly (safety and attempting to replicate shot values, primarily).  In terms of the routing and flow of play, only those who insist on playing the tips are incovenienced, though perhaps the aesthetics might change a bit (specially if the cart paths are also extended).

I understand that ANGC actually removed some of its former tournamnet tees, and now they have a very long course and a considerably shorter one.  If I was a member, this would bother me some.  Fortunately, most courses I am acquainted with didn't remove their shorter tournament tees.

And while we are talking about shot values, how do people feel about heavily contoured greens on many of the classics now running at speeds up to twice what they used to be when they were designed?  To be consistent, with the added length, shouldn't the greens also be maintained at a slower pace, well under 10?

Courses which can't add lenght can probably speed up the greens to offset the distance issue.  The shot values will change somewhat with the short game becoming more important, but some consistency in scoring may be possible.

[T_MacWood]

Lou
"Of course, Scarlet is no more MacKenzie than the U. of Michigan layout is, and perhaps it should not be characterized as such.  I know of several routings down here done by an architect who gets no attribution for the courses.  Even before the current renovation, Scarlet was also a longer, more muscular course than any of MacKenzie's I've played.”

Are you sure about that? The plan for Michigan was done by Maxwell. If I’m not mistaken his brother-in-law who was his construction foreman (I think his name is Wood) built Michigan’s course. As opposed to the plans for the Scarlet and Gray which were done by MacKenzie, and constructed by first Maxwell and then McCoy (MacKenzie’s foreman at St. Charles). It is like comparing apples and oranges.

You can’t compare the Scarlet and Gray to a course that was routed by one architect and then built by another architect—like Stonewall or the Fazio course near Carmel. Completely different situations. In those cases there was no desire to fulfill the original plan…the original architect was replaced for a reason. MacKenzie wasn't replaced; he died. Probably the closest case would be some of the courses Banks completed for Raynor. Ohio State could have hired Ross or RTJ, but instead chose to follow the MacKenzie plan with people they hoped could build them a MacKenzie course.

”Unfortunately, people like you and me are not the only constituents of the facility.  Scarlet is first and foremost a competition course.  The Grey is for students and the less proficient.”

I agree. It clear now who the primary constituents for the Scarlet are…the Men’s golf team.

”They've been adding length on Scarlet by building new tees since at least the time I was there in the 1970s.  BTW, is there a card of the course on MacKenzie's routing?  I would be curious to learn what the original yardage was.”

There is yardage on his plan…I don’t have it front of me, but I believe it was around 6750 yards. The course was 6850 when it opened in 1938. If it wasn’t the longest MacKenzie design, it was only notch below ANGC.

”As a competition course, Scarlet has had to keep up with the changes in the game to remain a credible test.  ANGC has done the same thing, and it is often criticized here and elsewhere for the modifications.”

I don’t believe it is fair to compare the architectural history of ANGC with the Scarlet. OSU is one of the best preserved courses of its era, ANGC one of the worst.  

“Other MacKenzie courses like CPC, Valley, Meadow, Pasatiempo, Jockey, etc. seemed to have resisted making the changes, but these are not courses which regularly host high-level competitive events.”

Crystal Downs and Cypress Point have hosted a few Amateur and Pro events. But no course in the world has hosted more high-level events than ANGC….a major just about every years since the mid-30’s.  A unique situation to say the least. And a checkered architectural history to say the least as well. A long history of very poor architectural decisions. St. Andrews has probably been the second busiest host, and has taken a much different approach to changing (or not changing) its architecture.

”I too would be interested in your take on how the changes will specifically affect the course.”

Since I will never be playing the course from the full 7500 yards, the yardage will have very little affect upon me or my experience. The changes to the greens and the new bunkering scheme will have the most effect. I’ll get back to you in year or two and let you know.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()