New history book: St. George's (Toronto)

[Jeff_Mingay]

Last nite, I received my copy of "St. George's Golf and Country Club, Celebrating 75 Years" by Jim Barclay. Jim, who also wrote "Golf in Canada: A History" and the Stanley Thompson bio. "The Toronto Terror", is a long-time St. George's member.

I've only had time to go through the book quickly just yet, but am pretty impressed ths far into it.

One of the failings of so many club history books is a lack of information on the golf course, its design and history. Well, Jim's book is packed with materials on Thompson's outstanding design at St. George's, including nicely reproduced historic and modern-day photos of all 18 holes.

Most interesting is a synopsis of each hole from 1930, provided by a "B.L. Anderson" of the Royal Canadian Golf Association who had "discussed how the holes were intended to be played with the architect of the course". One of the highlights of Anderson's writings is his description of Thompson's 15th hole, which was dramatically altered by Robbie Robinson during the mid-1960s.

"This hole resembles more a seaside links," writes Anderson. "You play up a valley bunkered like sand dunes on either side. The green is not visible, but through a bottleneck of hills the top of the flag can be seen. The green nestles in a little valley, surrounded on three sides by stately beeches and maples, and there are no traps around the comparatively flat green for the reason that the second shot is blind. The second shot must be studied well and placed."

Upon the course's opening, the fifteenth was immediately considered one of the great holes of the world by golfing authorities. Which is clearly why Robinson moved the green way back to a very awkward position atop a steep hill, converting the hole to a par 5  

In fact, going thru the golf course sections of the book only magnifies how awful Robinson's changes turned out. Particularly at 15 and 3. He had planned more changes, too, that the club (thankfully) shot down!

Oh well, at least Ian Andrew and Doug Carrick have brought back some of the original flair of Thompson's design recently, with the help of superintendent John Gall.

[ian]

"Which is clearly why Robinson moved the green way back to a very awkward position atop a steep hill, converting the hole to a par 5"  

He/They moved it for three reasons.

1. Needed a five, with shortening both 17 and 18 to par 4's.
Also provided much additional yardage, which was an isue after the previous Canadian Open. I'm fairly certain the club was told to make it harder or no future opens (funny the one they did all the work for was the last).

2. Members hated the walk up the hill between holes, especially since it came late in the round.

3. The green below was in a bowl at the bottom of the hill surrounded by large trees. It was a very wet location that always had turf problems. It was the worst green on the course most years. There was a desire to relocate the green for health reasons

Your right, it was a great hole, since the tee shot had to flirt with the deep left bunker to gain visibility of the green.

I always found it interesting that Doak rated this (par 5) as the best hole on the course in The Confidential Guide.


I still don't have a copy, I will need to go buy one from the pro shop.

[Tyler Kearns]

Ian,

Love the new logo, very sad, but true. It looks like this year is lost, and next year's NHL season is in limbo.

It's nice to see that Barclay's book contains much information regarding the architecture of St. George's. I am just finishing up "Hathstauwk", a history of Capilano which features many written letters between Thompson & the British Pacific management - but is light on his architectural ideas at the course. Further, not many pictures of the course, which is a crime for any architectural study (which of course this isn't). Although I hear they have also published a new history book which features some excellent pictures. Content?

TK

[ian]

Tyler

Pictures from the current course are great, the content on Thompson is minimal. There is no historical photos since all documentation was lost with the maintenance building burning down. Too bad. They also didn't even include the old photo of #14 green from the clubhouse.

I've never seen the book that you have. Are there any interesting tidbits on Thompson? Are the letters interesting or informative. The few I have seen are more formal.



The idea for the logo is a direct steal of Tommy's idea with the Dodgers.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ian,

The reasons you provide for moving 15 green don't surprise me, but they're still not valid in my opinion  

They "needed" a par 5... why? If 15 had remained a par 4, and 17 and 18 were changed to par 4s, total par on the incoming nine would have been 35. And, the additional yardage comes with the most awkward shot on the course - the third at the 15th.

15 may have been a problem green agronomically, but they could have tried cutting down some trees around the green and improving the sub-surface drainage (perhaps they did?). Essentially, they traded a green that had agronomic problems for one that's architecturally challenged!

And, I don't think "members hated the walk up the hill" to 16 tee is a good reason to move the green. After all, they continue to walk up the same hill to get to the new 15th green  

St. George's is one of the classic examples of a course being ruined by changes related to one professional golf tournament. Don't get me wrong, I love the course today. But Robinson's changes are clearly inferior to Thompson's original design.

If I'm not mistaken, Doak hasn't played St. George's. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Tom.) I'd bet money that if he went back this spring for a round, 15 wouldn't be his favourite hole.

All for the sake of argument, my friend  

[ian]

I'm just telling you why they moved it for context.

I find it interesting that the 4th and 15th involved precise driving and great risk to get even a view of part of the green, and these were two greens that were removed.

Another thought for context: Golf clubs are very attached to their current par. I suspect that 4 and 15 were a trade off for 17 and 18.

I should photopaint the lost holes for context at some point.

[Matthew MacKay]

Ian, maybe you could quickly outline the original routing and the subsequent changes.  

Jeff, I'm not sure "ruined" is the right word.  There's enough amazing stuff there to more than make up for a few booboos.  Also, by awkward do you mean difficult?  The shot up the hill on 15 is definately that and the layup is no treat either making the hole a good 3-shot par 5, IMHO.  It's been a round wrecker for me in the past.

[Robert Thompson]

Yeah, Jeff, I'd say "ruined" is a bit extreme. It is still the best golf course in Canada and one of only two in the Top 100 on Golf's list. There are some issues -- #3 green, for example -- but the best (#2, #13, #14, #17, #18) are tremendous. Robbie did his best to bugger this one up, but the course is great despite it.

R

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ian,

Another interesting tidbit, about the 4th: everytime I've been to St. George's I've wondered why the small hill in the tee shot landing area at right is covered with rough. The drive is forced left, into the valley with no other option.

Here's part B.L. Anderson's description of that hole, from 1930:

"There are two routes to No. 4 hole. You may elect to play along the plateau on the right which calls for a very exacting shot, or you can take the short route in the valley. If you play down the plateau, the green is visible and there are no traps intervening. From the valley on the left there is a series of traps to be negotiated and the green is not visible and the carry approximately 175 yards."

Strategy!

Of course, Anderson's description is of the old hole featuring Thompson's green. Still, a fairway expansion right, atop of hill/plateau would be cool. Playing with Jim Barclay, I drove onto the plateau and was able to reach the green in two with a 4-iron. From the valley left, it's much more difficult to find the green with your second... which is perhaps why the plateau is covered with rough these days!

Matt:

"Ruined" is the right word in my view  

Particularly at Robinson's 15, which is an inferior hole to Thompson's original. Today's 15 is very one-dimensional in comparison. For most golfers, it's simply drive down the middle, lay up to the base of the hill, and play a blind pitch up over a steep bank. Everyday. Sure it's difficult. But what does that say? It's easy to make holes difficult. Making them interesting is the real challenge of golf course design.

Rob:

I agree. The best holes at St. George's: 1, 2 (!), 5, 6, 7 (!!), 8 (!), 11, 12, 14 (!), 17, and 18 are absolutely world-class. I'm just trying to make a point about the brilliance of the original 15th  

[Matthew MacKay]

I guess this begs the question of why the club didn't do a full restoration when Ian came in.  I recognize that members would see it as a major inconvenience but it would have been short term pain for long term gain.  I'd be curious to know if there was any philisophical desire from the members for a full-scale restoration or whether they preferred the status quo.

[ian]

Jeff,

The answer from them is safety. I know, I know, I don't get it either. Both versions of the hole play better from on top. There is a chance over time that the fairway can be recaptured. John has mulled this one over for a while.

Of note: during the Toronto Star Amatuer I watched a four iron hit onto the 15th. About 1 in 10 had a go at the green. This suprised the hell out of me, and upset me a lot (i have no clue what will happen even 10 years out).

Matt,

I was asked to do a bunker restoration and renovation based upon what was there in the beginning. Holes were not part of the project.

You will not see the 4th, 9th, or 15th altered. The 4th has the slimest of chances since that hole may become a four in the forseeable future anyway. The 9th has been altered with the renovation to resemble the old ninth green. If it moved, it would be a par four immediately. The 15th they like, sorry for the message, but many like the hole a lot. It is there one long dominant five. The green front was leveled last year, with very few noticing, it has improved playability.

The 3rd will change, but in which way or how much, time will tell. It will not be a full restoration, the club has indicated they are not interested in a full restoration. The question is how much can be regained. Currently there is a waiting game to get away from the foolish idea of re-leveling the existing green in the current configuration; as opposed to returning the origional green back with a rebuild. Time is often your friend in these matters, you wait for the opportunity to push forward the better solution. And now we wait.

Remember Robbie was brought in as a reaction to the Canadian Open, where the course was deemed to easy. Royal Montreal moved to their present location over similar criticism.

[Jeff_Mingay]

That is unbelievable, Ian. 4-irons to the 15th?! Wow.

Think the ball's going much, much farther for the best players of today?! David Fay and Peter Dawson will tell you, "no". But 4-irons to St. George's 15th suggest otherwise. Man...

The 15th hole was 28 years old when Robinson made his alterations. Robinson's hole is now 38 years old! So, his version of the 15th does have its own history these days. And I guess there's something to be said about that. It's much like RTJ's Oakland Hills-South vs. Ross' original design.

Forget comparing Thompson's and Robinson's versions of the third for a minute. That hole is plain and simply needs to be fixed, as Ian knows. The back to front tilt of the green makes the hole impossibly difficult when the green surface is rolling fast and true.

That said, Thompson's original was a very beautiful, and very unique par 3 hole. I've been meaning to ask Jim Barclay about what exactly prompted the change to that green complex. Do you know, Ian?  

[Matthew MacKay]

It is true that 15 as it stands now is St. George's only legit par 5 for longer hitters (for now, at least).  Whether that is enough justification for the hole's current configuration, I'm not sure.  The golf course already as it stands is likely about a par 69 1/2 in theoretical terms.  
The 4th with the right side plateau opened up would be a superb hole, regardless of par.
I hope the club takes it's time to do #3 properly.  I assume it was a better hole pre-Robinson.  Are there pics of it in the new book?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Matt:

Name a course that's not par 68 or 69 for the best players these days? Because the ball is going so far for the elite golfer, legimate three-shot holes are few and far between.  

We can either live with this fact, or continue to make ridiculous alterations, like moving back greens that in 10 years or less will be reached with two strokes as well. This is a bad trend golf has been dealing with for some time now.

Yes, there are a few pics of the original third in Barclay's new history book. They're worth a look too!

[ian]

Matt & Jeff

The third hole could be restored entirely. There is enough photos from various angles, although none is from the tee ().

Jeff, I was rebuilt because the green contour was (wait for it.....) "too steep". Now of note: Robbie planned on building a redan, but ran out of fill and turned the green into the hill.

Jeff, the original hole was in play from 29 to 66 (37 years), Robbie's hole was in play from 66-04 (37 years). Now there's a better dilema.

The 4th and 11th are definately reachable. The 9th and 15th take considerable skill for a great player to get to them. The fives are fine. The 4th is the one that is the most likely to have discussion in the future (my opinion).

[Matthew MacKay]

Jeff, I agree we should leave things alone but I gotta admit that my ideal course has a legit (and interesting) 3-shot par 5.  I can't think of a classic Canadian course that is any more than a par 70, at most.  There are some moderns that would qualify though.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Whoops. That was a typo, Ian. Thanks for pointing out my poor math skills! My original point was made though. Robinson's 15th has a history of its own, equal to Thompson's hole.

How funny is that, re: the third, that Robbie rebuilt the green because the original was too steep! Perhaps he forgot to shoot grades before they grassed his green!

[ian]

Matt,
"I can't think of a classic Canadian course that is any more than a par 70, at most.

I can, whether it's Highland Links, Brantford or many other great courses; there are plenty that would not possibly drop down to par 70. Think Summit, Mississaugua etc. , you'll realize there are lots of configurations that do not become 70 under the pressure of technology.

Of note: If you lke 3 shotters go to Peterborough G&CC this summer. Hole #8 is 575 and the 11th is 637yards. The 17th is a wonderful well bunkered 490 to round out a great set of 5's.

Jeff,

Bill Hynd built the green, perhaps he forgot to shoot grades? I'm not so sure this was entirely Robbie's call. I even think Bill built a model of what the green was supposed to look like.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ian,

Jim's new history book does imply that Bill Hynd (the superintendent at the time) was heavily involved, and that he did build a model of the green prior to construction.

Either way, it's very, very steep. Could Thompson's original green have been steeper?

[ian]

Apparently the green was even steeper particularly in the back and relatively small in size. The current green is just over double the size of the original. While this green is supposed to be less severe, I bet there is little difference from the green it replaced.

The front hill, that created the blind green site, was supposed to be 10 feet higher in the highest point (slightly right of centre). Remember this hill had two large bunkers cut into it too, which tied in with all the bunkers back and left.

I wanted to return those bunkers, but it was feared that the seniors and ladies would be unfairly punished. I tried a few times with images, but to no avail.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ian,

The historic photos I've seen don't indicate that Thompson's green was smaller. Although I admit, I could be wrong.

What a hole Thompson's third must have been - amazingly originally!

Anyone: say what you will about the original hole "needing" to be altered, but from an architectural perspective, I think we've lost one of the great par 3s of the world. Definitely one of the most unique par 3s in Canada. For sure.

[ian]

Here is the third green from 1930 I think. I agree with you, this was one of the great holes, and so was four! and this is still arguably the best course in the country.



The 4th green contour, which of course are still there on the plateau in the 2nd landing



The ninth green site which was awesome. We tried to coppy the bunkers from this and transfer them to the new green site. The back ones are very close, the front ones did not have the room, but bits and pieces are directly bowrrowed to get the effect.



The aewsome and intimidating 2nd shot on old 15. The flag would not be visible from anywhere but tight to the left bunker.



I wasn't sure if these were published, but it also allows context for others who haven't seen the holes (or these photos).

[Tyler Kearns]

I've never seen the book that you have. Are there any interesting tidbits on Thompson? Are the letters interesting or informative. The few I have seen are more formal.

Ian,

The original book on Capilano "Hathstauwk" features correspondance between Thomspon and A.J.T. Taylor (representing the British Pac. Properties group) and John Anderson - B.P.P.'s on site man. Architecturally, the letters feature a few of the hole-by-hole instructions given to complete the golf course as well as some cost estimates to finish work. Thompson also gave very detailed and specific planting plans and lists, specifying 61 varieties of shrubs, plants and trees and 26 varieties of grass seed. He was very aware of each plants flowering habits and foliage colour, and selected and located them accordingly. Unfortunately, the published letters do not delve into the architectural decision making process - but they may exist, although as you noted, much was lost during the fire that destroyed the maintenance area.

Of note is a rather terse letter written by Thompson explaining why he needed to be on site more often. Management always asked him to postpone or limit visits as a means to save money, and Thompson simply ignored them, showing up when he felt it necessary to ensure the golf course was built properly.

Interestingly, Thompson's advise to the managment at Capilano was exceptionally detailed, speaking in great depth as to how to set up the membership (dues, recruitment etc.), selection of head professional and expected operating expenses (clubhouse & maintenance). It almost sounds as if he was a partner in the project, and not just the architect.

TK

[Matthew MacKay]

Ian, I think you're underestimating the distance the ball is flying these days.  There are very few legit three shotters on our classic courses anymore.  I'll site the examples you provided based on my own game (longer than most but not gorilla long).

Mississaugua - #4 becomes a par 4, #5 is reachable by cutting the corner, #12 is a legit 3-shotter due to the elevated green and water in front, #13 is reachable.
Personal Par becomes 70.

Brantford - #1 is reachable, #4 is reachable, #12 is reachable, #14 is reachable, #18 is a really good shotter.
Personal Par becomes 70.

Summit - #6 is reachable, #9 is reachable, #14 is reachable, #16 is a legit 3-shotter.
Personal Par becomes 68.5.

Westmount is a classic course that comes to mind that holds it's intended par.

I was a member at Peterborough for a few years...#8 is seemingly simple but the right to left tilt of the hole plays tricks on you.  Do you think #11 is better at 637 as opposed to 527?  #17 is a great hole and part of a great four hole finish.  Shame they sold off a few holes for development, I never saw them but apparently they were better than what's there now.  We should get the boys together this season and play Kawartha and Peterborough back to back.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I'd like that, Matt. I think Ian's working with both of those clubs, too.

Reports I've received (from Ian) make Peterborough and Kawartha sound like excellent sleepers few people are aware of.