Clouser's Why Dornick Hills should be Restored...

[Ran Morrissett]

...is posted under IMO and Architecture Timeline.

Is Chris Clouser's paper entitled Why Dornick Hills should be Restored a one-of-a-kind?

By that, I mean here is a non-member with no affliation to Dornick Hills who has nonetheless dedicated numerous hours reseaching the architectural evolution of Dornick Hills. He outlines the features that once made Perry Maxwell's first course so truly special and highlights on a hole by hole basis an overview of the significant changes that have occured.

Like every other club, the changes overtime were well intended but the course as it plays today must be the final report card. And based on Chris's analysis, few would claim that the today's course lives up to its past glories. Of course, perhaps the members of Dornick Hills are content and have no desire to revert to Maxwell's original design work. Obviously nothing will happen as long as that's the case.  

Conversely, Chris doesn't call for the course to be shut and millions spent on it as such an approach has no basis in reality. However, be it in the next 5 or 10 or 20 years, Chris has provided enough information to act as an impetus of change where the club and their architect of choosing could slowly but surely bring back some of the lost character. And isn't that one of the highest goals this site can possibly achieve - affecting change?

Such research has been very well done by members of clubs before (e.g. Geoff Shackelford and Riviera, Jeff Mingay's new club history of Essex, the legendary Tom Paul and Gulph Mills, etc) and those clubs now have in writing the good, the bad and the ugly as to what has transpired to their course over the past decades and the members can make of it what they will.

Chris is different to the extent that he is not a member but as in those three examples, he has invested personal time with only the hope that the membership will one day better understand what a gem they possess(ed). Ultimately, perhaps change can then come but in the meanwhile, Chris's noble efforts deserve our full attention while begging the question: would someone else like to spend a similar amount of time and thought and bring to light the potential of another faded Golden Age gem?

Cheers,

[Jeff Mingay]

Great work, Chris. I really enjoyed the read.

Dornick Hills sounds to have been quite a golf course, model on the classics. That said, it saddens me to hear Mr. Maxwell's first course, built with his own sweat and blood, on his own land in Oklahoma is today such a mess.

And, boy, ain't it ironic that you cite Dornick Hills CC as being a small town club without much money to undertake restorative-based work these days, after they've obviously spent a pretty good chunk over the past few decades screwing everything up. Whether the members realize it or not?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Chris
Very well done. Dornick Hills appears to have been one of the most interesting designs of its era. Definitely a golf course of historically importance for a number of reasons. A fascinating combination of very interesting (and unusual) natural features and uniquely designed golf holes. Where would you place Dornick Hills in Maxwell's resume of courses?

[Dunlop_White]

Chris,

Very nice piece! I have a couple of comments regarding the use of merging fairways at Dornick Hills.....You wrote that the 12th hole was originally designed with a "double fairway" and the 10th, 11th, and 18th holes used one large "merging fairway that provided for various avenues of play on all three holes"..... Very interesting because Maxwell's original design of OTC contained various integrated fairways as well. The last 130 yards of our Holes 8 and 17 unmistakably possessed merging fairways at Old Town. The remaining 100 yards of Holes 9 and 18 also contained merging fairways. The 13th and 14th fairways merged, and the 7th and 17th fairways would have merged if it were not for a maitenance/construction roadway.

From your extensive research on Maxwell, can you conclude that the use of "merging fairways" was in fact a style of Maxwells? Did he use this design element often? If so, would you recommend restoring merging fairways?

Interestingly, in the last 6 weeks, I have hosted Kris Spence, Brad Klein, and Michael Fay at Old Town..... and reviving this design feature is painfully obvious to us all.

[Dunlop_White]

When will your Maxwell book be published?

[Chris_Clouser]

Tom,

If I were to rank the Maxwell courses as he designed them, I would say it would be a top 5.  Crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes, Southern Hills and Old Town would be the only ones above it.  As it is today, it is still in the top 10.  

Dunlop,

On the merged fairways, it was ironic that I found it when I researched Dornick, because it was after I talked with you at length about Old Town and their merged fairways that I received a copy of an old picture that shows the fairways of 10 and 18 from behind the 10th tee as one large fairway area.  I have only seen one other course thus far where he did use merging fairways.  It appears that after Dornick he used the technique only when he was doing something that was inspired by his study of the Old Course at St. Andrews.  As for restoring them, I would say that even though it may be a nice feature it should only be done if it really fits in with the design intent of the course when weighed in with other factors like irrigation and safety.  The reason they fit in so well with Dornick is because this area was a wide open field with nothing but a creek and a few trees when Maxwell did the design.  Tree clearing would have to be the first step in the process as many of the old merged fairways are now seperated by trees.  

On the book, let's just say I've got a couple of publishers interested.  I don't want to jinx it, so I'll leave it at that.  The book is probably 99% done, but I've been saying that for about 6 months and I always seem to keep finding things to throw in there.  

[Ran Morrissett]

I am very intrigued by the influence of CB Macdonald/NGLA on Maxwell/Dornick Hills - such a great course as NGLA SHOULD have had a great influence but frankly, the number of non-Raynor/Mcd. courses that have features attributed to NGLA seem few and far between, as best I can tell. The direct link that Chris writes is encouraging/makes sense, at least to me.

Wonder when/if Maxwell ever saw St. Louis CC??

[Scott_Burroughs]

Here the aerial of Dornick Hills, which was AOTD #186 (thread
here: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/YaBB.cgi?board=GD1&action=display&num=1030713721
)

[Geoff_Shackelford]

I don't know whether to laugh or scream at the site of the overgrown Maxwell cemetary. Amazing. I just can't believe that.

Great work Chris, best of luck trying to convince those in charge of what needs to be done. My vote would be for a Bunker Hill (Axland-Proctor) restoration. Tell the locals Dave has a big shotgun, so leave him alone and let them fix the course!

The triple merged fairway is awesome. What a place Dornick Hill must have been. And just reading about it reminds me how far golf has strayed from something that made SO much sense, and how happy I am that Maxwell, MacKenzie, Thomas, Macdonald, Behr and Jones aren't around to see what's become of their bold designs.
Geoff

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Chris
After looking at the aerial there are several things that strike me. First the course still looks to be fairly open, trees haven't overtaken the place. The cart path appears to have neccessitated the elimination of some interesting hazards. The driving range looks to be ultra narrow - is it?

If the club was willing to sacrafice their narrow range (perhaps turn it 90 degrees and have them swing away into a net), rearrange or remove the continous path, chop down some trees--it seems they could restore the course in large portion. (Also the pond behind the 8th green and beside the 17th - I can't think of too many things worse than a pond behind a green). Of course a major bunker/green restoration and perhaps mound reduction. The first step is to educate the club to what they had - do you think they appreciate the significance of the course?

The greens were softened in the 60's - did they keep their general scheme; just reduce the slopes? How would you characterize the current greens - do they remain Maxwell-like in interest?

[Chris_Clouser]

Some more answers to the questions proposed since my last post.

Ran,

I believe Maxwell did see the St. Louis CC.  As a student and follower of Macdonald's philosophy early on, I'm willing to bet the farm that he made the trip to see a Macdonald course that close to him.  I also think a lot of the course influenced his design at Oklahoma City.  The 5th at St. Louis bears more than a resemblance to the 5th at OKCGCC.  The only difference being that the OKC hole is about 80 yards longer.

Scott,

Thanks for posting the aerial it helps as a reference in answering some of the questions by Tom MacWood.

Geoff,

To be fair to the club, they are aware of the problems with the cemetary and want to do something with it, but it always gets pushed behind other issues.  To me it makes so much sense for a course that pays the lip service to memorializing Maxwell, to also honor his resting place and make it part of the complete package.  Thanks for the comments also.

Tom,

From the air you are correct, but from the ground the trees are ominpresent, especially on a course that was so wide open.  Remember also that this aerial is probably almost 10 years old so the trees are even more a presence today.  The trees on the creek are the worst problem as they seem to divide the course so much.  The range is somewhat narrow and from the aerial Scott posted you can still see the original green and the outline of a bunker on the left side.  The avenue is still there for play to the green from the air but Nugent and his crew redid the mounding along that side of the new first hole for safety reasons.  Cart paths are part of the problem as well.  Another reason why cartball sucks!  I believe the club understands the significance of what they have, but they believe they have improved the course and tried to keep the Maxwell style.  Not to be critical of the people who did the work there, but I have a different opinion.  I think a lot of the people who made those choices didn't know all of the information that I have been able to dig up.  

The pond isn't so much the problem on holes 7 and 17 as the fact that the green complexes are so different from the original design.  17 was a short hole and I believe Maxwell probably tried to mimic the design of the 4th at the National in it's design, even the green.  The 7th today is probably similar in nature to the design by Perry though.  For this hole, a short par 4 with a downhill approach, the pond is an intimidating factor behind the green.  That waste bunker between the greens though would be extremely cool to see though.

As for the greens, I believe the largest part of what they did was reduce the slope, but some greens were changed significantly with the work in the 1960s.  The 18th was a massive green with three tiers.  I believe they eliminated the undulations and made it a much more back to front green and when they made the greens faster over time it made them impossible to play and when Jeff Brauer came in his recommendations made sense.  But if they had left the green almost as originally designed it probably would still be fine today.  The greens today are hit and miss with the way Maxwell greens were back then.  I think the 16th is a very good green and I think the 14th as Brauer redid it is very good.  But greens like the 2nd and 11th, I'm just not too crazy about.  

Getting back to the 1st though.  I really like the new hole.  It really is similar in nature to some other Maxwell openers I've seen, but the problem is that it created the need to change the 2nd hole.  The whole 2nd hole really is a big problem if you ask me though.  It's nothing like what Maxwell would have designed.  The original 2nd hole was almost a template for him to use on so many other courses.  A somewhat diagonal carry over water to a green perched hard by the water.  I can't think of one direct carry par 3 that he ever designed.

I agree with you Tom, a good bunker restoration and some tree elimination would go a long way to making this course what it was.  The routing is still in tact with the exception of the opening holes.  But if you restore any of the more critical bunkers, you will have to restore the greens to what they were or the bunkers won't be nearly as important.  The 8th is a prime example.  If you restore the carry bunker, that would be great, but if the green remains the same, it is simply a cross hazard and added maintenance costs.  But if the slope is restored to the green, then the bunker becomes even more of an obstacle and becomes integral to the design.  

Thanks for the comments and questions guys.  

[TEPaul]

Chris:

Really excellent piece on Dornick Hills complete evolution. And as Ran Morrissett mentioned, very unusual in that you're not a member of the club. Frankly, if anyone, including members, seriously think for even a half minute about what you've done (as a non-member), logically it should both interest and inspire them to take what you've done even more seriously than if a member did it (general memberships can suspect other members of some kind of self interest!).

Since the page layout of this thread and the IMO is so wide (having to constantly click right and left) I have not finished reading your entire IMO article. But I've read enough so far to get inspired by a certain modus operandi I initially suspected, then very seriously suspected, and now am about completely convinced of from Perry Maxwell.

That would be the modus operandi of Maxwell's that I once called in my own design evolution report of Gulph Mills the "concept copy" or "conceptual copy".

What does that mean and why did I call it that? Because I came to truly believe he definitely was copying the underlying strategies of a prototype hole and in unusual ways with remarkable exactness. By that I mean the underlying shot requirements, the underlying choices, even in a whole hole progression of choices, options, demands were remarkably similar to the hole I believe he was drawing from. But I added the "concept" part simply because Maxwell's "concept copy" holes generally never looked much at all like the hole he was copying conceptually. In other words, they were never identifiable visually (sometimes not even remotely so) as a copy but in the play arrangement of them most definitely they were the same thing.

At first I thought this must have been only a coincidence or possibly even due to the fact that there's only a limited amount of arrangements an architect can do in certain situations but for obvious reasons I gave up on that assumption particularly after seeing more and more of this kind of modus operandi from him on other holes.

And then I came to understand better my own #8 hole (a Maxwell redesign) that I thought at first was a "concept copy" of Maxwell's #7 redesign at ANGC until I realized GMGC's #8 predated ANGC's #7. I think now he may have done 5-6 of this hole design on other courses. Not sure at this point which course came first.

Without getting into it in detail I would say that the way Maxwell managed to pull off this modus operandi of "concept copying" here and there, both hiding the similarities visually and managing to maintain the strategic similarities so well has to be the sign of a bit of a genius in this way.

And additionally interesting is how he often did it by REUSING existing features (even bunkering) from the previous hole (that he was redesigning) that weren't in most cases remotely like what he was producing!!

And now when I read in your article that he did this same sort of thing (reusing) on other holes and what you also said about his fascination with the architectural and strategic "concepts" of NGLA it becomes even clearer.

When this kind of thing becomes heavily researched and identified for what it actually is it should all become more and more interesting and appealing for any club to consider in restoration or various degrees of it.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
Is Maxwell unique in his 'concept copy' method; isn't that the case with most golf architects?

Chris
How do they prevent range balls from straying on to the 1st and/or off the property?

I agree with your assessment of the waste bunker between the 7th and 17th - it would very interesting. One of the worst feelings in golf is to hit your approach slightly strong and then find it has found a watery grave.

Is the current 1st superior to the old 1st? It sounds like you believe the old 2nd was a better hole. How would judge the old 1st and 2nd against the new holes - its sounds that you would not put the restoration of these holes near the top of the list of restoration priorities.

I don't think he specializes in restorations, but I would inlist the help of Jeff Brauer in documenting what some of the original features might have looked like.

[Chris_Clouser]

Tom Paul,

Maxwell was big into concept holes.  Dornick contained
several of them that he used throughout his career.  The
really neat thing is that as his career progressed the concept
holes actually changed from a National style to more of his
own style.  He did incorporate a couple of ideas that he may
have gotten from Mackenzie (based on the 13th at Augusta).  
I actually have identified a course that is basically made up of
conceptual copies that Maxwell used early in his career.  But I'll keep that under my hat for now.


Tom MacWood,

They have added a large hill that seperates the driving range from the 1st fairway.  From the 1st tee it really isn't
noticeable, but from the range tee it is obvious.  But if you
didn't see it before that was added, I don't know that you
would find it obtrusive in any way.

If I were to judge them, I would say the current first is better
than its predecessor, but not so much that it outweighs the
difference between the second holes.  I would love to see the
second revised by possibly moving the tee from its current
location just north of the 1st green to the south end of the
pond and make the hole much more like what Maxwell
designed, but then you have a whole bunch of possible safety
issues with shots from the 1st fairway and from the 9th
tee.  So I think the club should probably leave the holes as
they are unless they work out some safety issues or decide
on a full restoration and go back to the original layout.

 Also, I did talk with Jeff Brauer and got the details on the
work they did at Dornick.  I think some of the work was
better than what many people have made it out to be, but it
just isn't what Maxwell had there originally.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

No, I've never seen another architect do "concept copies" half so well as Perry Maxwell did, at least from what I've seen so far.

Certainly C.B. Macdonald did copies of holes or partial copies but he never seem particularly interested in hiding that fact visually or even admitting it.

It seems to me more and more that Maxwell may have done things like this occasionally and almost dedicatedly. It's almost as if he said to himself; "How can I make this hole (redesign or otherwise) play as much like that hole (the inspiration or prototype) and at the same time make it look nothing like it! And when you throw into that his occasional reuse of existing features (from vastly different types of existing holes) it seems more extraordinary.

I suspect why he may have gotten into doing this and this way. Many architects admire things that others have done--in the specific or even in the general (ie--whole hole options and strategies--options being the raw material of overall strategies) but for whatever reason don't like to appear to be blatantly copying someone else.

I think my own #7 hole was a perfect example of him trying to do these two separate things. And the undeniable fact is he made a rather serious mistake in one part of the overall concept (probably trying for just another variation of a feature to try to accomplish the same overall effect).

But assuming I'm correct on all this, we've now gone back and done what we think he was trying for in the overall by removing his mistake which led to the devolving down of the quality and interest of the hole.

Now the hole should play so much more in concept like the hole he was trying to conceptually copy but obviously was unwilling to admit or make obvious.

When it opens for play next spring we will all see how successful it'll be for us and if it is the credit should go to Maxwell for trying for such an exact concept in playbility although not in look (despite his partial mistake).

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
What about Thomas's modified Redans? I'm also thinking of the concept holes of Ross, Tillinghast's Sahara par-5's, Willie Park's version of 'The Table', Alison's modified Gibraltor, and others. It seems to me that many architects, then and now, have certain concepts that they often go back to.

Chris
Are there any good photos documenting the look of the bunkering?

[Chris_Clouser]

I just saw that Tom posted some additional comments.

Tom M.

Unfortunately, I don't have any great photos of the bunkering early on of the course.  Not many photos of the holes themselves exist anymore.  But I am supposed to be getting some photos of the next course that he did, Twin Hills, in the next few weeks and those should reflect a similar style of bunker as he used at Dornick.

On the conceptual copy thing, I think you make a good point that other architects did the same as what Maxwell was doing.  They would develop their own template of holes and use them as they saw fit.  I also agree with Tom Paul in that Maxwell seemed to have this large array of these style of holes that he would find a spot to use them.  He not only used many of the holes from the National as inspiration, but developed a few of his own early in his career.  One of the things I am going to try to do is identify those template holes in the book I'm working on, in a some manner, perhaps similar to how George presented them in his tome to CB Macdonald.  

[Matt_Cohn]

Our OU golf team plays Dornick every couple of weeks. This whole article and thread has been very intriguing and kind of upsetting too, only because I thought this whole time that I'd been seeing some fairly original Maxwell work! I knew about the renovations but I didn't realize just how drastically things had been changed. I plan on playing my next round at DHCC with that old map of the club in my back pocket, looking around at everything between shots! Really interesting stuff, and thanks and well-done to Chris

[George Pazin]

bumping.

I thought this had some relevancy to the ongoing discussions about restorations of old dead guy courses.

P.S. I found an old paper printout of this thread. It's obviously from 2003, and Tom P only had 5700+ posts way back then.

[David Stamm]

P.S. I found an old paper printout of this thread. It's obviously from 2003, and Tom P only had 5700+ posts way back then.

George, that must've been a couple of months after TEP joined!

[Buck Wolter]

There is a Twitter post from the Red Dirt Golf Collective that Tom Doak has agreed to restore Dornick Hills. This thread has some heavy hitters so it seemed worthy of a reply rather than a new topic.

[Brian Ross]

Some additional info available here:

https://golfoklahoma.org/doak-donates-time-talent-to-help-with-dornick-hills-restoration/

[Chris Clouser]

Some pretty big news about Tom at Dornick.  I know the folks in Ardmore are excited about it and looking forward to the changes. 

[Tom_Doak]

The coolest thing about the project is that the Foundation that is helping fund the project includes Maxwell's granddaughter as well as the grandson of Dean Woods, Maxwell's brother-in-law and construction superintendent.


We are working on potential solutions for the range so that the opening holes can be restored.  I stopped through Ardmore last weekend on my way to Houston and marked about 400 trees to be cut down this winter.


The hardest feature to restore IMO are tge so-called waste bunkers, many of which were just exposed dirt or sand washouts down along the creek.  That's not the sort of presentation many clubs will go for in this day and age.


The creek floods regularly with enough force that it will wash out anything you build down there, but with an irrigation system and modern Bermuda grass cultivars, any open areas get grown over pretty quickly.  We had some success at Bel Air in finding a happy medium for maintaining the barrancas, so maybe I should get Dornick's greenkeeper out there this winter.