I hate to point this out, 'cause the club has done well with the plaque, but "Oakhill" is incorrect. If they're referring to the Rochester, NY Oak Hill. Yeah, it's Oak Hill.

I would question the "pure ross" status of this course. Understand that they lost some holes due to property sales in the 30s/40s. The plaque is a marketing campaign to keep the membership pricing at the $175K level......the course is just not that good when you get past the drainage they spent $6m on, and the new pro shop.

I have played it many times, before and after the renovation...if this is all Ross has to offer then I would rather drive down to Passy or run over to Menlo!

Now I haven't played The Course in Benham's Backyard since it was renovated... but I did many times in the past.. and well.... I must agree with Jon.  It was pretty good, but nothing to get all excited about.  It does look better now.  But calling it Ross now also strikes me as marketing more than anything... We've discussed this before on here and I could be wrong but isn't the current routing completely different from what Ross did with Beresford?  And if so, isn't this about the same as Sharp Park selling itself as a Mackenzie course?

That kinda thing bugs me....

This plaque is bugging me more - and that's before I noticed the spelling error Jeff correctly pointed out.

Jonathan,
   Thanks for sharing the pix. It was a pleasure to meet you on Tuesday.
   
Too bad about the Oakhill thing, how embarassing.

Jordan, you are correct.  That tree is between the two greens.  The eighth green is located just below the tree.

Jordan:
I stand corrected, I guess I had better get glasses, but I think it is understandable that I would think the tree is in the fairway. It seems to me that Ross would not design those two holes (greens) so that the one in the background conflicted with the design of the other. In these cases, such as at Essex in Windsor, Ontario, Ross would build mounds etc. to block off the view from one green to the other. In my limited knowledge of Ross courses, he always made efforts not to let this kind of thing happen, even on parallel fairways and their bunkers.

     Hello Ron Forse here.  Just thought we would respond about PG & CC.  While it is true that routing changes have been made due to land sales decades ago, the structure of the golf course is essentially intact since 1922 when Ross rebuilt an old fashioned home-made layout called the Beresford Club.  Land over the hill from the 6th green was sold 60 years ago +/- and the par 4 5th used to be a par 5.  The current par 3 7th used to play as a par 4 up and over the hill where the present tees are situated.  Tees on holes 1 & 10 were close to side-by-side, but both holes became sharper doglegs when the driving range was expanded from a practice field to what it is now.  The tennis courts between 1 and 2 have been there since 1913, which is the opening year of Beresford.  Hole 1 was a virtually blind approach shot when R.T. Jones Sr. rebuilt and relocated the green further right.  The “Retro-rebuild” that was done at PG & CC reinstated DJR’s original hillside green location.  #3 green is further back making the hole longer than original.  Everything else on the course is in its original routing.  In this regard the course is structurally very close to the 1922 version. (Even the situation of the 4th green being directly behind the 8th green). The entire course was reconstructed with 25 miles of drainage tile under the nine inches capping sand.  Capping was done, along with the continuous concrete cart path system, because PG & CC was one of the only clubs in the 1990’s around San Fran that was not playable during the winter months.  The native soil is a “fat clay”, very hard to get water into and hard to get water out.  Grass on fairways would often be eight inches high in February due to how wet and unmowable the hilly ground would become.

   The basis for our design was a photocopy of Ross’ general plan of 1922, found by Geoff Shackelford at the Ralph Miller Library in LA.  We copied and reinstated the shapes and undulations in the putting greens found on that plan.  In the current parking lots Ross had a short par 3 (9th hole) that was replaced by RTJ in 1960 with the current par 3 15th in the canyon.  Not a bad hole at all!  

   Hopefully this clears up any haziness or uncertainty about the Ross course or the reconstruction.  

   Thank you for the positive comments about the course.  Jim Nagle and I felt really good about the final product when it was all done.  

Ron - let me also thank you for those comments, and I too have to echo what my friend Mike said - the course is WAY better now than it ever has been in my 25+ years living here.

BUT... it is likely me, but I remain hazy on whether one really should call this a Ross course.  As you detail it here - and correct me if I'm wrong - there are 5-7 holes that are pretty much completely different from the Beresford design.  Of course it's not YOUR fault - the land being sold, driving range expanded, etc. - and I have zero doubt you did the best you could to match the 1922 plans in all ways possible - but with that many holes different, is it really fair to call it Ross?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I swear.  And I have no axe to grind - hell I live in San Jose and I'm a public course player.  I just want to believe this is a Ross, because it would be really cool to have such in the Bay Area... and whereas your descriptions have me believing it a lot more than I did before I read your words, well... I still can't completely get behind the idea.

What am I missing?

TH