News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


T_MacWood

MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« on: March 29, 2005, 08:17:21 AM »
I took a quick look at the plans for the new Ohio State Scarlet and unfortunately it doesn't appear there has been any attempt to follow the original MacKenzie plan...or any attempt to give the course a MacKenzie feel (easier said than done).

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.

When the work is complete I would suggest they remove the MacKenzie plan that hangs above the fireplace in the clubhouse and replace it with the new plan.

On the postive side, they have removed a ton of trees (they had removed a ton the last year too)....exposing the ravine at the 16th for example. I don't know what the total yardage of this new course will be, but my estimate is between 7700 and 7800 yards, perhaps even longer.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2005, 08:23:55 AM by Tom MacWood »

Mike_Sweeney

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2005, 08:25:36 AM »
Tom,

In your estimate which will have greater changes from the original after the restoration, OSU or Augusta?

Contrary to popular belief around here, I believe you will give a fair answer to my next question. Was OSU good enough to preserve the original MacK course?

Will E

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2005, 08:28:25 AM »
Sounds like we'll have a nice compliment to the the MacHill's course we have in Ann Arbor.

T_MacWood

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2005, 08:53:53 AM »
Ohio State was never completed as MacKenzie planned. Due to the Depression the course originally was constructed without fairway bunkers. The pro Kepler added the bunkers later, without concern for following the plan. Technically Ohio State would not be a restoration, it would be a completion.

"In your estimate which will have greater changes from the original after the restoration, OSU or Augusta?"

I don't know, that is like asking if Michael Jackson or Phyliss Diller is closer to their original form.

MacKenzie's Ohio State was definitely worthy of completing in my estimation...the design chronologically fell between Crystal Downs and Pasatiempo, and his later designs at ANGC, Bayside and Jockey. Closer to Crystal Downs and Valley in style, as opposed to his later minimalistic designs like ANGC. Then again, there are many, I'm sure, who don't believe of those courses were worthy of preserving either.

« Last Edit: March 29, 2005, 08:59:52 AM by Tom MacWood »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2005, 10:14:45 AM »
"In your estimate which will have greater changes from the original after the restoration, OSU or Augusta?"

Tom MacW says, "I don't know, that is like asking if Michael Jackson or Phyliss Diller is closer to their original form."

Tom MacW -

Perfect. Absolutely perfect.

Bob

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2005, 10:40:57 AM »
TMac,

I agree that Scarlet was heavily overtreed to the detriment of the course.  If many trees have been removed recently, and a bunch more are coming down, doesn't this constitute a major improvement?

Do you really feel that the bunkering (shape and positioning) is lacking?  With the exception of the cross fairway bunker on #7 and the greenside bunker on #11, I generally found the bunkering at Scarlet to fit the course well.  I suppose that they could have been more artistic, but Scarlet is not that type of course.

As to the MacKenzie map in the clubhouse, don't you think that if Nicklaus would try to replicate it, many of the bunkers would be out of play today?  I don't recall if the map included a card of the course, but it would be interesting to learn what the original yardage was for the course.

Where is Nicklaus getting the extra 500 yards?

Matt_Cohn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2005, 11:10:45 AM »
Are the plans online anywhere?

T_MacWood

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2005, 06:17:10 PM »
The plans are not online to my knowledge.

Lou
As far as I can tell there has been no effort by Nicklaus & Co. to replicate MacKenzie bunkering scheme or even to reproduce a modern version of it. Frankly I don't believe a modern interpretation would even be necessary (or a good idea). The golf course is designed for students, faculty and staff, MacKenzie's bunkering scheme would have met the requirements of those folks, and championship requirements as well (considering the courses maximum length). I have every reason to believe the MacKenzie course would have been both fun and testing....one of the Good Doctor's strengths.

Kepler's simplistic, straight forward bunkering scheme is the weakness of the golf course--very poor IMO (incidently there was no effort by Kepler to follow MacKenzie's bunkering scheme either). By far the worst bunkering of any MacKenzie course I'm familiar with (because they aren't what or where he intended).

Over the years the course has been lengthened by moving the tees. Hypothetically when you move tees, bunkers should not require movment.

My guess is the course today is about 7300 yards when stretched fully. I estimate the Nicklaus course will be 300 to 400 yards longer. The first tee will be located on the practice putting green nearest the driving range. The second tee will moved out near the 8th fairway. The tenth tee will be behind the torn down snack shack. The 11th will be moved well back again (and it is well back now). Same with the 15th. I'm not sure about the 12th or 13th (or the 6th and 4th). The 17th tee will be connected to the 16th green complex. The 18th tee will be right behind the 17th green adjacent to Kenny Rd. requiring a drive over the 18th tee of the Gray. There will be a new creek crossing the 18th fairway in the valley short of the green.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2005, 10:59:50 PM by Tom MacWood »

Mike_Cirba

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2005, 12:01:45 AM »
So, the course will max out at approximately 7,700 yards at Columbus elevation.

That's excellent.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2005, 12:46:23 AM »
TMac,

What is it about the bunkering again that you don't like?  Is it the placement/location, or the design?  Are we talking about form or function?

As to the new length, I really don't know how they are going to get another 400 yards without putting the players in danger.  They can't pick up much on the first three holes, nor 10, 11, and 17.  A new #18 tee south of #17 green could pick up 30 yards maybe, but the new angle will make the hole a 90* dogleg with little or no chance to cut the corner.  I also don't see how a new creek in the valley there will affect tournament play, though it should make the hole more difficult for the everyday player.  Perhaps the new back tees will be used on very rare occasions, much like the lower tee on #14 just beyond #13 green.

When is the work scheduled to begin and how long will the course be closed?  Are most of the trees being removed spruces and crabapples?  

T_MacWood

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2005, 08:03:20 AM »
"Are we talking about form or function?"

Lou
Both. The bunkering has always been pathetic. On the majority of holes you will find a single dull shapless bunker either guarding the inside or outside of a dogleg--often only affecting the poorly struck shot, as opposed to the boldly struck shot.

As someone who appreciates MacKenzie's bunkering skill, I'm sure you can contrast our amateuristic bunkering (from a functional point of view) with his work. No groupings of bunkers, no bunkers en echelon, no central hazards, no diagonal hazards, one crossing hazard (which incidently is being eliminated), no bunkers pertruding in along the edges, no duffers headache bunkers which were a MacKenzie staple (designed to thrill the duffer more than hurt the duffer). I won't even bring up the artistic or naturalistic comparision.

MacKenzie's 14th green was to be bunkerless and mounded a la the 8th at ANGC.

The first and second are at least 30 yards longer. I'm not sure about the 4th, 6th and 9th (they could all be lengthened). 10th at least twenty yards longer, eleven as well. I'm not sure about the 12th or 13th. I believe the 14th is a par-4 (that back tee has been in regular use for some time). I'm not sure about the 15th, but it could be stretched by at least fifteen, maybe twenty yards. The 17th is fifteen or twenty yards longer. And the eigteenth is probably twenty-five yards longer give or take five yards (and 90* dogleg, crossing the 18th of the Gray).

7700 might be an overstatement, probably only 7500 yards.

It appears they will soften the contrours on several greens--12, 13 and 16 I recall off the top of my head...after my quick look.

Most of the spruce have been gone for a few years (I actually liked the spruce). I'm not crazy about the Hawthorns...I'm not sure about their fate.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2005, 08:35:46 AM by Tom MacWood »

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2005, 12:32:54 PM »
Tom,

Aesthetically, the bunkering on Scarlet was a negative during my time there in the 70s.  Many were not placed in the ground at natural rises, built-up artificially on the flat terrain.

However, from the standpoint of function, I think that they worked quite well.  The bunkering on several holes, nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, and 14 from the bottom tee, have a huge impact on how the hole is played.  And in my few hundered rounds there, I am sure that I visited every one on the course at least a couple of times.

I've only played a half-dozen or so MacKenzie courses, but his bunkering, while highly artistic and making a great visual impression, didn't see to come into play very much.  Perhaps this has to do with these courses not keeping up architecturally with the new technology.

Funny that you liked the spruces.  I think that the forestation of Scarlet, particularly with the junk trees such as the spruce and crabapple, detracted from the course greatly.  The spruces in particular with their branches to the ground and planted on some of the turns just a few feet from the fairways added little beyond lost balls, delays, cheating, and fustration.  Thank God they are mostly gone.

Let me know the timing of the work and perhaps I can schedule a trip up there to see the finished product.  It has been some seven+ years since I've played Scarlet.

T_MacWood

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2005, 02:32:33 PM »
"I've only played a half-dozen or so MacKenzie courses, but his bunkering, while highly artistic and making a great visual impression, didn't see to come into play very much.  Perhaps this has to do with these courses not keeping up architecturally with the new technology."

Lou
I don't subcribe to the school of thought that claims MacKenzie was guilty of unnecessary eye candy. What MacK courses would fewer bunkers have been preferable?

The bunker at second effectively pinches the landing area, but his hardly strategic. The bunker at #3 was well out of play and elimated years ago. #4 guards the corner, nothing to write home about. Seven is interesting, but will be eliminated. Nine punishes a pulled drive...not strategic. Same with 14.

I did not know a Spruce was considered junk tree.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2005, 03:57:07 PM »
Quote
The spruces in particular with their branches to the ground and planted on some of the turns just a few feet from the fairways added little beyond lost balls, delays, cheating, and fustration.  Thank God they are mostly gone.

Lou, of course I don't have a dog in this fight, having never played or seen Scarlet.  But, as a general proposition, your thoughts about the spruce are a seminal point of discussion on any golden age course that has had original design intent polluted by the repeated acts of lunacy, the planting of spruces to "spruce" things up.  Every valid restoration effort in our area begins with the simplest of remedies and a no-brainer for restoration architects; get rid of the rediculous spruces that were added starting in about the 50s along the in-play rough lines of hole corridors.  

Tom, are you serious or being sarcastic in your comments about not knowing the spruce is considered a junk tree? :o  Pardon me if I am too dense to descern the difference. ;D
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

T_MacWood

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2005, 04:22:41 PM »
RJ
No, I wasn’t being sarcastic, the Serbian Spruce, the species at Ohio State GC, is a handsome tree noted for its landscape value. Its narrow conical habit makes it an interesting tree for the golf course as well. A spruce is not a spruce is not a spruce.

Sorry to get off topic.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2005, 04:24:54 PM by Tom MacWood »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2005, 05:37:07 PM »
http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/treeselector/index_tree.cfm?id=76

Tom, I sure am not looking for a fight here, but I really think it is highly relevant to this discussion.  Whether Nicklaus plans to leave those spruce or remove them, both ways it will be a part of the design as it will remain after he finishes his work; will it not?

Your opening comments observed that the plan removes a ton of trees, as well has already having removed a ton of trees last year.  Are you implying that they remove trees other than those spruce that are characterized as being at doglegs, just in intermediate rough areas, and cut low to the ground causing undu playing delays, the frustration of the hacker to resort to foot wedges and the like?  Surely, MacKenzie never intended that!  

Can you post any photos you might have of the earliest years at the Scarlet course of the Ohio State University? ;) ;D
« Last Edit: March 30, 2005, 05:37:38 PM by RJ_Daley »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

T_MacWood

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2005, 06:31:59 PM »
RJ
It isn't relevant to the discussion. If you will go back and re-read my response to Lou, you will see that the spruces were removed some years ago.

Since you have diverted the topic and appear to have an enterest in spruces...this is from Michael Dirr's book (The bible on trees and bushes):

Picea omorika
Serbian Spruce

50'60' in height,
20'-25' wide.

Slow

Needles are 1/2" to 1" long, glossy dark-green on the upper surface. Serbian spruce is an exceptionally handsome tree, with a slender trunk and short branches that are ascending on the upper portion of the tree and drooping on the lower portion, forming a slender pyramid about one-fourth as wide as it is tall. Highly recommended as a specimen or in group plantings.

http://www.midwestlandscapeplants.org/photos/0213.jpg

The tree removing program is separate from Nicklaus...it was begun prior to an architect being hired.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2005, 06:43:09 PM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2005, 06:43:32 PM »
"I don't know, that is like asking if Michael Jackson or Phyliss Diller is closer to their original form."

That's a no-brainer. Phyllis Diller is much closer to the original form.

T_MacWood

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2005, 07:22:04 PM »
RJ
I had no idea MacKenzie had an aversion toward spruce or firs. He didn't seem to mind them at Pasatiempo...IMO they looked attractive at both Pasatiempo and Ohio State.

http://www.pasatiempo.com/web/golfinfo_slideshows.php

When Lynn St. John hired MacKenzie for OSU, he invisioned bunkering like what was found at Pasatiempo and Cypress Point--he loved those courses. In fact in letters he commented that he did not believe Michigan was a true MacKenzie course because of its bunkering (if I'm not mistaken Maxwell was largely reponsible for Michigan).

Patrick_Mucci

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2005, 08:21:22 PM »
Tom MacWood,

You must have known that the die was cast when the University selected the archtitect.

I would have been surprised/amazed if other then what you describe had occured.

Did you have any access or imput prior to that selection ?

Who was the driving force at the University ?
« Last Edit: March 30, 2005, 08:22:18 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

T_MacWood

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2005, 10:19:24 PM »
”You must have known that the die was cast when the University selected the archtitect.”

I was very skeptical when the decision was made, but held out some small hope.
 
” you have any access or imput prior to that selection ?”

No, not really. Only indirectly, in that they had read my essay on the golf course...and unfortunately interpreted it to match their vision of what needed to be done...they read my essay to say the present course was not a MacKenzie, therefore a preservation/restoration expert was not needed….which matched their desire to remodel prior to me writing the essay. People read what they want to read.  

I contacted Nicklaus & Co. and they expressed interest in meeting with me a few months ago. Unfortunately we never got together.

The Athletic Director, who does not play golf and who is leaving the University, drove the project...as he drove all Athletic facilty projects. Ironic when you consider when he first arrived at the University, some years ago, he proposed they sell the golf courses (prime real estate in Upper Arlington)and build a new course out in the hinterlands.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2005, 10:20:45 PM by Tom MacWood »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2005, 10:41:50 PM »
Tom Macwood,
”You must have known that the die was cast when the University selected the archtitect.”

I was very skeptical when the decision was made, but held out some small hope.

I can understand that, but, I don't think any of us view Nicklaus as a restoration specialist
[/color]
 
” you have any access or imput prior to that selection ?”

No, not really. Only indirectly, in that they had read my essay on the golf course...and unfortunately interpreted it to match their vision of what needed to be done...they read my essay to say the present course was not a MacKenzie, therefore a preservation/restoration expert was not needed….which matched their desire to remodel prior to me writing the essay. People read what they want to read.  

I would imagine that the direction was pre-determined long before they had possesion of your essay.  And, I'd probably agree that they extracted that which was a convenient match for their agenda.
[/color]

I contacted Nicklaus & Co. and they expressed interest in meeting with me a few months ago. Unfortunately we never got together.

From their perspective, I would guess that your views were in conflict with theirs, and that nothing constructive, to their end, could come of it, which is unfortunate.  It's difficult to stem or deflect the tide of modern or fadish sentiment.
[/color]

The Athletic Director, who does not play golf and who is leaving the University, drove the project...as he drove all Athletic facilty projects. Ironic when you consider when he first arrived at the University, some years ago, he proposed they sell the golf courses (prime real estate in Upper Arlington)and build a new course out in the hinterlands.

Notre Dame did that with their old course, but, it didn't have the pedigree and history of the Scarlet Course and the old course was right on the campus, at the back door to some of the residence halls.

From this experience I think you can see some of the frustration that TEPaul, Geoff Childs, Geoff Shackelford, Tommy Naccarato, myself and others have felt when a misquided project gains a life and direction of its own, and no amount of prudent reasoning can deflect the pursuit of the intended goal by those in charge.  Sadly, I think this course of action is becoming more popular at many clubs.
[/color]

« Last Edit: March 30, 2005, 10:42:57 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2005, 11:57:22 PM »
TMac,

I didn't say anything to suggest that MacKenzie courses have too many bunkers.  Nor did I insinuate anything about eye candy.  I am a visual person and appreciate features that are very pleasing to the eye.  Directional (aiming) bunkers are fine by me.

My observation was simply that the bunkering at the MacKenzie courses I've played did not seem to put as much pressure on the driver and the approaches as Scarlet normally did.  It could be that all MacKenzie courses I have played are relatively short, and the bunkers are no longer in the strategic places.   To the extent that Scarlet is a MacKenzie routing, it is much longer than his other courses with the exception of ANGC.

As to whether the current bunkering scheme has much strategic merit, we'll just disagree.  I was a better golfer when I was at OSU than I am today, and I always respected Scarlet's bunkers.

You may recall the NCAA tournament there in the mid-70s won by Jay Haas and Wake Forest.  Curtis Strange made a double bogie on #3 from the left fairway bunker, enroute to one of the easiests 67 I have ever seen.  The bunker may be way out your line of play, but if one wanted to play aggressively and hit a driver, the left side of the fairway was the target and it didn't take much to turn it over into that bunker.  I know I've done it many times, and I am surprised that it was removed.

Regarding my characterization of spruces being junk trees, in the way they were planted at OSU so close to the fairways, I think that they were.  MacKenzie was big on providing the opportunity for redemption, i.e. recovering from an indifferent shot with an extraordinay one.  The spruces were not indigenous, and they totally foreclosed on any chance of recovery.  MacKenzie also did not like spending a lot of time looking for lost balls, something that happened regularly with the spruces planted in groups.

BTW, I have a sweet gum in my front yard and it is nothing but a trash tree.  Put it in another wooded area away from people and houses, and it is actually a very attractive tree.  Like bunkers, the placement of trees is critical.  At OSU, the spruces were very penal.

Are you bothered that Nicklaus is adding yardage to an already long course (for members and students)?  Who would have been a superior and viable architect to take on the project?  Remember, Tom Doak didn't want any part of it, and Weiskopf and Hurdzan were the two early favorites.
 

 
« Last Edit: March 31, 2005, 12:02:43 AM by Lou_Duran »

T_MacWood

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2005, 12:52:35 AM »
Lou
I am bothered that a well-laid-out golf course needs to be stretched to 7500 yards to remain a viable championship test…that has nothing to do with Jack Nicklaus.

The strange thing is Nicklaus appeared to have no interest in the project until the end. At that point the long time favorite Weiskopf gave up and never even submitted a bid. Doak wanted no part of it. Hurdzan knew he had no chance, same with Devries. There is no way Ohio State would hire anyone but Nicklaus.

I would not describe MacKenzie’s bunkering as “directional”…aka eye candy. We do disagree on the bunkering at Ohio State. I caddied in that NCAA tournament and the prior NCAA tournament…the major factor in both those championships was the extremely difficult rough.

Serbian Spruce is not indigenous, the Sweet gum is, bent grass is not, the White pine is, the Scotch pine is not, the Crab apple is. The Serbian spruce thrives in Ohio, and I don’t find aesthetically ill-suited for this area. Those trees really only affected two holes the 11th and 14th. Not so much at the 11th…they more or less frame the hole. At the 14th they blocked wild seconds from in-coming traffic at the 16th on the Gray. In twenty-five plus years as a caddy and golfer, I’ve lost fewer then five golf balls to a spruce. I’m certain gorse at St. Andrew’s in MacKenzie’s day was a more difficult hazard.

It appears you would prefer a Nicklaus Scarlet to a MacKenzie Scarlet?


TEPaul

Re:MacNicklaus's Ohio State
« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2005, 07:09:59 AM »
I've never seen OSU's Scarlett golf course but from what I've read about it on here I'm wondering if the course should ever have actually tried to call itself an Alister MacKenzie golf course. Tom MacWood said he thinks the course should take down the mention and design of Alister MacKenzie after the latest redesign by Nicklaus. My question is should OSU have put up MacKenzie in the first place? None of the bunkering was done to his plans? How about the greens? MacKenzie was dead anyway when they constructed the course, right?

I'd love to see the regulatory bodies do something about distance increases too but until they do what's wrong with a 7500 yard golf course if it's the venue of the OSU golf team? 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?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back