What is known about Harris and his body of work?

I didn't develop a real interest in golf until college, and my university course, Finkbine, is a Harris course.  Naturally, I have a soft spot for Finkbine and my carefree time spent there.  Finkbine is not a great course, architecturally speaking, but it's very enjoyable to play and has held up well over time.  

Finkbine was built in the 1950s but I understand Harris was a working architect at least as far back as the 1930s.  He was an early member of the ASGCA.  I believe he designed a lot of courses in the Chicago area and also Tucson National.  My limited research indicates that, in his time, he was a high profile architect.

Did he design any noteworthy courses?  Was there anything in particular for which he was known?  

Quote from: Tim Pitner on April 27, 2006, 02:51:47 PM

Quote from: ShivaSchmidt on April 27, 2006, 02:20:38 PM

But Shivas, I do want to know.  I like Finkbine, but I have no preconception of Harris one way or the other.  Please expound upon your "Top Ten Destructive Influences" designation.  

I am guessing he means that the guy has done a hatchet job on courses that didn't really need THAT TYPE of meddling.....a la Yale, Bel Air & Inverness

Michael,

You may well be right, but I'd like to hear some specifics.  And, Harris did quite a few original designs too--what can anyone tell me about his work (pro or con)?

Jeff,

Thanks, that's very interesting.  In fact, Finkbine does conform to the 4-5-4-3-4-5-4-3-4 model for each nine, although the second par 5 on the back plays like a 4.  Maybe this is an example of Harris forcing the issue.  I never really noticed the symmetry of that sequence on front and back--shows you how observant I am.  

Shivas, I'd still like to hear about Harris as one of the top ten destructive influences in golf architecture.

Shivas,

I don't disagree in general.  However, I don't think RBH was a leader in the field, and I don't think he was the only one eliminating quirk in the 1950's when he did the bulk of his work.  I figured he was following in the footsteps of RTJ, and worked on such mundane Midwest sites that it was easy to get rid of quirk.  Yeah, we miss it now, but at the time, I think everyone figured we could conquer nature, right after WWII.

I don't recall his greens being flat at all!  I was going to post that the "typical" RBH green had concave fronts to assist in helping hold shots and keep drainage out of those bunkers.  However, he often placed Maxwell type knobs about ten feet in from the back of his greens, which many players of that era hated - it was hard to get to a back pin (see the adjust to course thread) when the green rolled off the back about two feet past the pin.

Of course, my memory could be a little faulty on that, but I don't think so!  Go back to your coffee and I'll go back to mine!

Most of what Jeff and Shivas said about Harris applies to the course with which I'm familiar--Finkbine.  However, I wouldn't characterize the greens as flat.  They're not wildly undulating, but one of the things I've noticed playing there is that there is hardly a straight putt to be found, even on tap-ins.  

I will say given the terrain Signal Point in Niles, MI sits on, there are a few bunkers far from flat and ordinary.  With some money and TLC, quite a few could be very impressive.

I've not played any other RBH course beside Signal Point Club, but if you are near South Bend, IN I would recommend stopping in to see it.  It won't blow you away with difficulty but has been successful for many years supplying the membership with a fun test and excellent conditioning.  (Besides, it only gets about 2000 rounds per year.)

Ken

Shivas,

I don't doubt what you're saying regarding other Harris courses.  I wanted to point out one example of his work (the only one I've been exposed to as far as I know) that is quite nice.  A couple of the bunkers at Signal Point (one in particular to the right of hole #3/#12) have splash up faces and some interesting character to the high green side edge.  Unfortunately I don't have any photos.  None of the bunkers have the look of your picture regardless.

I found Jeff's remarks enlightening because much of the course's flow and par designation follow closely to Harris' ideal set up.

Shivas,

What you say about his bunkers is definitely on the mark, fortunately most of his original bunkers at Finkbine are gone today.  Not sure about the flatness/lack of contour in the greens.  Certainly they are far from the wildest greens I've ever seen but are definitely far more interesting than you see on most new designs today -- but there are still some decent pin positions available for big tournaments when they get them running at 11.5 and really make you pay if you put your approach in the wrong position (whether on the green or off)

The 4-5-4-3 par thing is interesting, I didn't know that was an RBH trademark, and it has always bugged me at Finkbine as it is a bit too formula for my tastes.

I get what you are saying about his 'low maintenance at all costs' ideal, but exactly how do you reconcile that with the fact he designed the 13th hole with two greens and no less than SEVEN teeboxes, and the 14th with two fairways?  Those don't exactly scream 'maintenance savings' to me.  But all his old bunkers were definitely a gang mower's width from the green, I'm certainly not sorry to see them go, though most of their replacements aren't exactly Picassos, either.

Damn, now I'm going to have to ask the pro if he has any info about Finkbine's origins.  Prior to tonight I would have bet a considerable sum against Finkbine opening up an interesting enough architectural question for me to do that!!

Mike,

Their theory was the course would be more interesting if you never played two similar holes in a row. Fair enough, but they also had a pattern for the hole length within that nine that causes you to hit perhaps three short irons in a row, assuming good tee shots.

As I recall, the most prevalent pattern of the Chicago school was a

1- medium 4,
2- Long 5 (to avoid slow play )
3- Long 4,
4- Long 3,
5 -Medium 4
6 -Short 5
7 - short 4
8 - short 3
9 - long 4

When this occurred, you would have short approach shots on holes 6-8.  If the long 3 occurred at 4, you had two long shots plus a fw wood on 2.

Neither this or Stanley Thompson's length analysis chart really cuts the mustard in describing true variety among shots.

But, that was their theory, from someone who lived it secondhand.

The funny thing about the pattern is that a long par 5 second can back up play, if the players are good enough. The second hole at Village Links of Glen Ellyn - a David Gill refurbished by son Garrett Gill - is a three-shot par 5 for us, but reachable in two by big hitters.
Those who tee it up in Western Open qualifying are big hitters. Almost every year, there are two-to-three group backups on the second tee caused by players on the fairway waiting for players on the green to hole out.
Interesting idea, at least. But the best laid plans...

This is an interesting topic for me, since up until a few years ago my parents owned Valley Oaks GC in Clinton, Iowa (RBH, 1966).  

- The par of the course matches his formula exactly.
- The length of the holes are at least a 90 pct match to the "formula" Jeff Brauer described
- Jeff's description of the green contours is bang on
- yes the bunkering is crappy and a gang mower fits neatly in between the bunkers and the greens.  If you have hit it in the bunker on this course, you have played a BAAAAAD shot and could have a 30 yd or longer bunker shot to the big greens, depending on where the pin is
- From a player's (and owner's) perspective, the routing and "formula" work out well for pace of play and avoiding bottlenecks
- Yes the course lacks architectural subtlety and at the same time yes it is fun to play and the locals (as well as visitors from as far away as Chicago) all seem to enjoy it.  If they joined GCA, I am sure that they would be "educated" into not enjoying their experience  
- The course is enjoyed by everyone from scratch or plus players to once a month hackers.  Good players don't generally consider it boring, easy, uninteresting, etc.
- In my opinion the routing is pretty good, and with a bunkering makeover, the course could be improved greatly in architectural terms...however, I don't know that that would be a positive thing for the people who actually play and enjoy the course.
- RBH is not an architectural genius and will not be remembered for any great contribution to his "art".  However, in the case of this course, he built a very enjoyable course that works for both the course's target audience and the owners.