Lesser-Known Architects worthy of Restoration Consideration?

[JC Urbina]

Don,


A worthy discussion.


I nominate a 1938 William Tucker design in Boulder Colorado.  The greens are some of the most intersting I have seen in a long time.  They provide strategy without bunkers encircling the green.  Highlights are # 9-15-16.


By improving the  mowing lines enlarging the shrunken  greens and some simple clean up of the landscape it would really give the muni player a glimpse into the cool features of a Golden Age design. Two greens were changed several years ago, they don't fit the overall theme, so  I am not sure why they were altered.


I don't know what the city would/ could spend but I don't see it as a big line item, what I do see is a way to maximize the entertainment value of this very walkable golf course with some pretty views of the Flatirons to the west.

[Jeff_Brauer]

JC,


Good call on Tucker.  I renovated his Pioneer Park GC in Lincoln, NE in the late 80's and early in my career.  It was also bunkerless, and I just double checked, it had been since at least 1960, according to HistoricAerials.com.  That is the way we rebuilt the greens, albeit, they weren't much and restoration wasn't the craze, so I substituted my more modern style.  I think Ron Whitten had some older material and it might have originally had bunkers when it was 27 holes.


But, like a lot of those ODG's that many sure knew how to route a course. I was most impressed by the then 7th, now 16th, where the outside/left side of the fw was set at the peak of a ridge.  Miss left and the downslope carried you away, so no need for any added hazard. I don't know why, but at the time, I had never seen the land used exactly like that.


Cheers and Happy New Year!

[JC Urbina]

Jeff,


One look at one of Tuckers greens and you could tell the ground game was in full effect.  I wouldn't say these greens would impress a  golfer who hits high lofted shots.  Those type of players may miss the creative features of these greens built on the ground but with very creative slopes from right to left or visa versa.


The simplicity of the greens make you wonder why we spend so much time creating  greens that look overshaped in a Parkland setting.  Such a simple strategy with smaller than average greens.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,


The simplicity of the greens make you wonder why we spend so much time creating  greens that look overshaped in a Parkland setting.  Such a simple strategy with smaller than average greens.

Me too...and flat is the toughest    a friend who actually won the 1995 NCAA BB tourney at UCLA once told me that saturday games on CBS were always the toughest because everyone wanted to make the "play of the week" and normal guys could go crazy.  Same can be said for golf courses...Overshaped is all aboiut marketing and photography..not the game...

[Ronald Montesano]

Our lesser-known guy in western New York is William Harries. He mentored Russ Tryon, who took over the business.


Harries helped build Cherry Hill, a Travis design across the Peace Bridge from Buffalo, in Crystal Beach, and was a member there. He did not share Travis' enthusiasm for inspired greens, and most of his greens diverged from Travis' sentiments.


Harries did Brookfield in Clarence, NY; Sheridan Park (since altered) in Tonawanda; Elma Meadows (since restored-ish) in Elma; and some really banal municipals courses in the area. He lacked inspiration, funding, or both, when building for the public golfer. His Beaver Island, Audubon, Hyde Park, and Brighton Park courses are serviceable yawners.


He has three to the east that I have not seen (Normanside, Oneonta, Turin Highlands). I have no interest in making a Harries pilgrimage, unless someone tells me why I should.


He is exhibit number one for my asking why?

[JC Urbina]

I understand the need to dazzle the golfer we are all guilty of it at one time or another but these  William Tucker greens are simple perfection.  I just need to pay more attention to these types of greens.


  It seems like designers want you to judge them on the way the greens are crafted, almost like the golf course could be lacking other features  but as long as you are impressed with the greens you will forgive them for everything else.




But as Mike Young mentioned , maybe that's why Tucker is not Mackenzie - Macdonald - Ross- Tillinghast!




Happy New  Year

[Peter Pallotta]

JC,
I think one key difference with the lesser known architects from the 60s and 70s is that they didn't think/worry about 'being judged' at all -- not about their greens or their bunkers or their earthmoving etc. It seems (from the many courses of theirs I've played) that they were concerned simply with building golf courses that *worked* -- for the game, the golfer, and the owner.

[Tom_Doak]

JC,
I think one key difference with the lesser known architects from the 60s and 70s is that they didn't think/worry about 'being judged' at all -- not about their greens or their bunkers or their earthmoving etc. It seems (from the many courses of theirs I've played) that they were concerned simply with building golf courses that *worked* -- for the game, the golfer, and the owner.

Yes, but a lot of those courses were dull as dishwater, too.  Or you should at least name a couple that weren't.

[Peter Pallotta]

It's true, Tom, that some of those courses could be dull -- though on the dullest/poorest/flattest sites those lesser knowns sure did know how to use a dog-leg or a dry creek bed or a left to right tilting green to good effect. And when given slightly better sites, the southern Ontario lesser known Rene Muylaert could provide us with if not 'great designs' then certainly 'good golf' at places like Mill Run, Nobelton Lakes, and (on a dramatic site) St Andrew's Valley. And Dick Kirkpatrick too, who many years ago used to post here (and who I read got his start with Robbie Robinson) gave us many good designs and much very good golf on a variety of sites, eg Copetown Woods, Lowville, Otter Creek, Granite Ridge. When I first picked up the game in my early 30s, a group of friends who golfed -- a 4/5 handicapper, a 10-12, a very good 18, and me -- would think nothing of skipping much closer courses for the 1+ hour drive along the busy QEW from Toronto to Hamilton to played a crowded Copetown Woods.



 

[Mike_Young]

JC,
I think one key difference with the lesser known architects from the 60s and 70s is that they didn't think/worry about 'being judged' at all -- not about their greens or their bunkers or their earthmoving etc. It seems (from the many courses of theirs I've played) that they were concerned simply with building golf courses that *worked* -- for the game, the golfer, and the owner.

Peter,There were architects during that time that accidentally got into the business and didn't even play golf. Those were some bad years with some clowns..   
When I talk about flat or "single plane" greens that worked I mean something like the green on #4 at Spyglass...you can have a flat green and have plenty of slope in a strategic direction..and a well contoured green based on strategy is good architecture.... but overshaping just to show that one can shape looks to be latest fad...but you know that...happy new year   JMO

[Tom_Doak]

It's true, Tom, that some of those courses could be dull -- though on the dullest/poorest/flattest sites those lesser knowns sure did know how to use a dog-leg or a dry creek bed or a left to right tilting green to good effect. And when given slightly better sites, the southern Ontario lesser known Rene Muylaert could provide us with if not 'great designs' then certainly 'good golf' at places like Mill Run, Nobelton Lakes, and (on a dramatic site) St Andrew's Valley. And Dick Kirkpatrick too, who many years ago used to post here (and who I read got his start with Robbie Robinson) gave us many good designs and much very good golf on a variety of sites, eg Copetown Woods, Lowville, Otter Creek, Granite Ridge. When I first picked up the game in my early 30s, a group of friends who golfed -- a 4/5 handicapper, a 10-12, a very good 18, and me -- would think nothing of skipping much closer courses for the 1+ hour drive along the busy QEW from Toronto to Hamilton to played a crowded Copetown Woods.

So is Copetown Woods (to choose one of the places you named) still well preserved?  Or has it succumbed to green committee tweaking, or to the Canadian equivalent of Mark F making improvements?

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - To borrow from Robert Frost, Mr Kirkpatrick (and Rene Muylaert) must've arrived at two roads that diverged in a wood, and both of them took the one that was *public* -- and that has made all the difference!

(In fairness, Copetown is a much more recent course, not one from the 60s and 70. I was 'pivoting off' JC's comment about it seeming that some designers want you to judge them on the way the greens are crafted -- since it seems to me that neither Mr. K nor Mr. M were much concerned about being judged, as neither the greens nor any other particular aspect/feature of their courses stands out or jumps out at you, just that the course 'works' as a whole)