Sugar Loaf on Ross and Mackenzie / Ron Whitten on Roseman and Wagstaff

[John_McMillan]

Golf course web-sites are a fascinating source of information.
From www.sugarloaftheoldcourse.com -

"This classic C.D. Wagstaff designed golf course reflects the architecture of the first half of the 20th Century.  Although Wagstaff may not be as well known as a Ross or MacKenzie, "I never hear of clubs wanting to restore their Joe Roseman or C.D. Wagstaff,"  Golf Digest course critic, Ron Whitten, once wrote."

Since I have no idea what this means, I'll turn to this group for enlightment and explanation.

[RJ_Daley]

John, the link didn't work for me.  Maybe it is expired website.

But, in general, it sounds like the course's promotional package, using some comment that Whitten made along the line.  I was looking in Whitten's book for Wagstaff and Roseman biographies, and it seems they were of an interesting lot of golf pioneers, in many golf related fields from design, to maintenance practices, to maintenance equipment design. 

With all the focus on the luminarieis of GCA, such as the endless threads about Wilson, Crump etc., these other ingenious and inventive gentlemen are getting short shrifted, and kudos to Whitten for bringing attention to them.  That includes many more golden era practitioners of golf related fields that folded into actual care and design of courses, than generally are popularly considered. 

Those guys weren't chimps.  They were all bright, inventive people.

[John_McMillan]

John, the link didn't work for me.  Maybe it is expired website.

I had to add a "the" to the link.
It should work now.

[BCrosby]

John -

I have no idea why the club included the Whitten quote. Maybe they figure that if they stab themselves first, no one else will bother. Dunno.

But the main thing is that I'm pleased to see you posting. Welcome back.

Bob

[RJ_Daley]

John, it doesn't look like Whitten had the idea of tree removal as part of restoration concept back to the look the course may have had back in the old days.  Some of the contours as seen in that photo of '12 looking back to 17' are interesting.  The obviously added trees over the years since then, particularly spruces to backdrop greens are certainly easy enough to be removed as part of restoration.

[Padraig Dooley]

"This classic C.D. Wagstaff designed golf course reflects the architecture of the first half of the 20th Century.  Although Wagstaff may not be as well known as a Ross or MacKenzie, "I never hear of clubs wanting to restore their Joe Roseman or C.D. Wagstaff,"  Golf Digest course critic, Ron Whitten, once wrote."

John, I think the quote means that Roseman and Wagstaff courses haven't degraded over time, at least in Ron Whitten's opinion.

[John_McMillan]

The course has recently renamed itself "Sugar Loaf - The Old Course" and is updating its advertising materials to connect itself to an architectural tradition I'm not sure the course ever really had.

What's syntatically curious is whether "not wanting to restore a CD Wagstaff" course is a good thing or a bad thing.  Do Wagstaff designs stand the test of time, and thus not require any restoration (good thing)? Or is there such little interest in a Wagstaff design that courses redesign them rather than restore them (bad thing)?

[BCrosby]

I think it is clear that Whitten is suggesting that R/W courses aren't restored because they aren't worth restoring.

I have no idea if that is true or not, but the meaning of Whitten's comment is plain enough.

Bob

[John_McMillan]

I think it is clear that Whitten is suggesting that R/W courses aren't restored because they aren't worth restoring.

OK ... if that's the proper syntax, then why is the course selecting THAT to promote the course on its web-site? 

Maybe it's some bizarre sort of "play it now, because it won't be here long" type of pitch?

[BCrosby]

John -

I don't know what else it could mean. Whitten being snide is the only way I can read it.

Which only deepens the mystery as to why they used it. Or maybe they figured that any publicity is good....

Bob

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bob,
That's not 'clear' at all.

[BCrosby]

Jim - Enlighten me.  Bob

[Tom_Doak]

I think that whoever wrote the promotional line misunderstood Whitten's quote to mean that he thought Roseman and Wagstaff were somehow above Ross in needing restoration.

Either that, or they understood the quote but thought others would misinterpret it in their favor.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bob,
We've already seen several differing opinions of what the heck this paragraph is supposed to be getting at.  Here's another, with a comma added, a capital removed, and an i.e. added    :

This classic C.D. Wagstaff designed golf course reflects the architecture of the first half of the 20th Century, although Wagstaff may not be as well known as a Ross or MacKenzie, i.e., "I never hear of clubs wanting to restore their Joe Roseman or C.D. Wagstaff,"  Golf Digest course critic, Ron Whitten, once wrote.   

They might have simply been trying to say that Wagstaff designed 'classic' courses(evidently they feel that they have one) but he wasn't as well known as Ross or MacKenzie (I never hear of clubs wanting to restore their Joe Roseman or C.D. Wagstaff- Ron Whitten)   

[BCrosby]

Jim -

I thnk that's pedaling pretty fast to give it a meaning that makes sense in the context. My guess is that the club just whiffed on its meaning. But to each is own.

Bob

[Jim_Kennedy]

The person who wrote the copy has missed his/her calling, they should be speechwriting for a pol.

[RJ_Daley]

I think Whitten got it wrong.  I think he meant to say "remodel" not 'restore'.   If you read it with the word "remodel" you have a whole different ball game. 

As a speaker and writer of Yogiesque 'purportions', I resemble that remark as 110% understandable in the 95% of what was written by Whitten when he wrote what he didn't mean.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm with RJ.  I love the Roseman and Wagstaff greens and courses I used to play in Chicago.  They did some very nice stuff, some of which, I mistook for Colt greens.

[john_stiles]

Well,  what about the course ?
Is it fun to play ?
Average track or a great layout ?

Pass on by and play Charleviox ?

Maybe Ron Whitten could weigh in on the Merion thread and clear things up 

[John_McMillan]

Well,  what about the course ?
Is it fun to play ?
Average track or a great layout ?

I'd say that Doak in the Confidential Guide is accurate -
"They didn't waste a lot of money here like at Grand Traverse, but they didn't accomplish very much, either:  just another golf course.  2."
I guess it's hard to put THAT on an advertising blurb.

It's also a bit of a stretch to sell a course built in 1966 by CD Wagstaff as somehow connected to courses built "in the first half of the 20th century by Mackenzie and Ross." 

For more fun with web-proofing, check out the membership packages offered at:
www.sugarloaftheoldcourse.com/memberships.html

Can anyone tell me how much it costs to join as a junior versus a single membership?  Presumably, for $600 more (!), the Junior has all the perks of the single member, without the ability to use a golf cart. 

[Dan Moore]

Wagstaff was responsible for Tam O'Shanter Country Club course in Chicago built in the 1920's.  Tam was home to George May's famous All American Open Championships in the 1950's.    Now owned by the Niles Park District the course has only 9 holes remaining.   

I suppose you could read Whitten to mean Wagstaff's courses don't need to restored because they were never changed in the first place.  Without the full context its impossible to say. 

Regardless the website's declaration "Play the best greens in the country"  tells you what they thought Whitten meant.