100 years, 6 architects and 1000 trees

[Patrick_Mucci]

Inverness (Ohio) is an interesting golf course.
It's had a least 6 architects, had holes eliminated, holes added, the routing changed, thousands of trees planted over the years and yet, has been a part of golfing history and Tournament golfing history in America.

Inverness will host the US Senior Open in a few weeks, and may get another US Open or PGA championship in the not to distant future.

Architecturally,
With all the hands that have touched the golf course, what is it about the golf course that allows it to maintain its greatness ?  How has it continued with its trend of providing a championship test for the greatest golfers in the world, while at the same time, being an enjoyable test for its members ?

[HamiltonBHearst]

Maybe Mr. Mcwood can comment if he has played the course.  I have not played so i have no opinion.

[Michael Dugger]

Is Inverness still considered great?  I always thought that what made it "good" was the Ross that is still left in it.  

But, I'm just passing along what I've heard.  I've never played it.  

But, still, is it still considered great?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mdugger,

I would make that assessment.

The golf course was not originally Donald Ross.

Who played it, and didn't think that it was great ?  
And, are they into golf course architecture ?
What did they say about the golf course, architecturally ?

Did they play it before or after approximately 1000 trees were removed and pruned ?

[Dan Grossman]

I have consistently heard architects talk about how great of a routing Inverness on such a small piece of land.  I thought that it was attributable to Donald Ross.  Pat - is that not the case?  You seem to be implying that someone was involved before Donald Ross.

Here is the routing.

[michael_j_fay]

Bernard Nichols was appointed by Inverness Members Frank and Harold Weber to lay out the original nine holes at the Inverness Club. It appears that the compensation for that effort was to allow Mr. Leonard of the Worthington Manufacturing Company use of thelinks while in Toledo. Apparently Mr. Nichols worked for Mr. Leonard.

The Nichols plan for nine holes was a bit off. The original plans only laid out eight holes. A short par three was squeezed in to solve the shortfall. That hole remained part of the course until the Fazios arrived.

Ross came in in 1918 and laid out what is the basic routing that remains to some extent today. The Ross course was finished in 1919 and the US Open was played there in 1920.

I have seen a number of Ross alleged "redo's" and most of them included building a new golf course over what was there. Some times he used parts of the original, sometimes not. In this case I think it is fair to say that he used some of Nicholls work form the original nine, rerouted the property and added nine.

As for the trees and the list of bright and lesser lights of the Architects brigade that has done some work there, I cannot say definatively yea or nay. I feel that the place that Inverness holds in history of golf in the US and the Clubs' long tie to the USGA is what keeps it in the Championship rota.

Even after all the work done there by so many different hands it is still a very good golf course for Championship play. It is somewhat a Ross and that adds panache.

The members love it. It is one of the busiest of the private Clubs in Ohio.

[Phil_the_Author]

I'm hoping someone can help me with this. In the book "The Course Beautiful," it lists the Inverness Club in whole, or part, to Tillinghast.

Did he have anything to do with it?

[T_MacWood]

Pat/LIRR/Hamilton
A very good but not great golf course IMO. A strong test featuring a number of very strong par-4's...not unlike Pebble Beach the greens are very small. Gently rolling ground perfect for golf and an interesting use of two streams. The changes made by Fazio have knocked the course down severely in my eyes. The par-3's are not up to any standard of greatness...two of which are Fazio's...totally out of character. A lack continuity is a problem. The course is fairly narrow as is...numerous parallel fairways...I don't recall the trees encroaching as severely as some other courses of its era.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

It's not the stream that is utilized as much as the arroyo or gulch in which the narrow stream flows.  On many of the holes the stream is piped underground making it virtually invisible and out of play.

The use of the gulch is fascinating, especially on two holes that parallel one another, # 1 & # 10.  On # 1 the green sits on a plateau above the gulch, while on # 10 the green sits in the gulch, just beyond the stream.  Two holes, side by side that look and play differently.

I found some of the Fazio holes disconnected from the rest of the architecture, and disconnected from the golf course in terms of the distance from a previous green to the next tee.  The two par 3's are lacking in the Ross feel.  So is the 5th hole.  However, the 8th hole, a combination of the old 6th, 7th and 8th holes is a very good golf hole.

The narrowness of the course may be part of the Ross design, certainly the parallel holes are.  Altering the mowing patterns could easily expand the fairways, but I think the terrain dictates some of the width on some of the holes.

The greens and their surrounds are fabulous.

Phil the Author & Dan Grossman,

Tillinghast did some work prior to the 1931 Open and Dick Wilson did some work prior to the 1957 Open.  George and Tom Fazio were retained to do some modest work in 1976 that turned in to a much larger project due to concerns about congestion with some of the holes coming to critical choke points, and the anticipation of the 1979 US Open and the need to accomodate crowds.  That work included adding three holes, combining three holes in to one, eliminating one hole, and reconfiguring other holes.Arthur Hills, a member, tinkered with the course prior to the 1986 and 1993 PGA.

I would think that someone could "Rossize" holes # 3, 5 and 6 and that that process would improve and elevate the golf course further and provide a uniform continuity with all of the other holes.

Michael J Fay,

It's not just the connection to the USGA that prolongs Inverness's involvelment with tournament golf, Inverness hosted the 1986 and 1993 PGA.  In addition, Inverness has a tournament history independent of the USGA and the PGA.

Bob Tway's play on the last hole didn't hurt either,
fairway bunker to greenside bunker to the bottom of the cup.
Nor did Azinger's playoff win.  Unfortunately, both came at the expense Greg Norman.

Inverness should continue with their tree removal program.
One only has to view the myriad number of trees of random species planted indescriminately around the golf course in conjunction with pictures from the early years to realize the harm that various green committees have wreaked upon the golf course over the years.  Inverness should be applauded for their tree removal program, but that program should be viewed as a work in progress, and not a finished project.

It would appear that the members enjoy the golf course a great deal, thanks to multiple tees, and that the golf course will provide all the test necessary for the Senior Open and any other championship awarded to the club.

[Brad Klein]

Picking up on Fay's account of the Ross course . . .

Tillinghast tinkered with bunkers and tees but not routing

Dick Wilson in mid-1950s also confined his work to bunkers, fairway lines, some geens perimeters

George & Tom Fazio were originally called in to look at the severe slopes on the (then) 7th and 17th greens, both of which were 5-7 percent. They spotted some congestion issues and the work quickly expanded, in large part owing to the club's ownership of an adjoining parcel. The Fazios' work included four new holes and led to the resignation of over 10 percent of the members. I was caddying at the 1979 U.S. Open (for Mike McCullough) and we were paired with Tom Weiskopf in a practice round who was so outraged over the renovation work that he declared "there ought to be a society for the presevation of Donald Ross."

Fazios' work included all of the following holes, plus many new tees throughout the course:

new present par-3 3rd hole
new present par-4 5th hole
new present par-3 6th hole

combining old 6 & 7 into present par-5 8th hole, thereby eliminating two wonderful little short par-4s, the 7th which was regualarly driveable even in the 1920s.

removal of old par-3 8th hole (pictured in Ross' "Golf Has Never Failed Me")

removal of old par-3 13th hole (area can be spotted between existing 13th green and 18th fairway)

In late-1980s, Toledo resident and Inverness member Arthur Hills was brought on board to soften the harshness of the Fazio holes, esp. the par-4 5th. He also overaw the restoration and tree removal and installed a short-game practice area.

For all that, Inverness has a pretty impressive tournament history, plus a golf course that makes stunning use of glacial ravines. The par-4 7th is surely among the best long, unbunkered holes in American golf. The finishing sequence (par 4-4-4-4-4) is demanding, varied and interesting, including many diagonal hazards. And the 18th is among the finest short par-4s and among the more dramatic finishing holes in U.S. golf.

Despite all efforts to kill off the patient, the body in question is doing quite well. Could it have done better? Absolutely.

By the way, for all the tree removal (actual count is 750), the dumbest tree of all remains - the black spruce Hinkleberry tree on no.

  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Klein,

There are a substantial number of trees that should be removed.

There was also an interesting feature on some of the greens, like # 4, 10 and 18.  A U or V shaped feature at the back or side of the green that made recovery extremely difficult.

It will be interesting to see where the USGA places the tees and pins, and how the competitors handle the golf course.

I had a caddy named Mark, who was the best reader of greens that I've ever encountered.  He gave us multiple reads based on pace that were perfect.  He saw breaks that none of us saw, and, on chipping, he knew exactly where to land the ball based on trajectory with perfect reads from the landing point.

I was going to recommend him to some contestants, but, he informed me that he will be in Colorado during the Senior Open.
This kid had to be worth 2 to 6 shots per round, maybe 8.

[T_MacWood]

Before both were altered which was the better course Inverness or Scioto?

I'd have to vote for Scioto--a much more interesting routing, fewer parallel holes, fewer holes heading north and south, superior par-3's and par-5's and nearly equal par-4's. Shame on Dick Wilson, Bobby Von Hagge and Joe Lee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

How did those guys get in the door at Scioto ?

Or did the members invite them in and send them on a mission to alter the golf course ?

Architects don't approach golf clubs, golf clubs approach architects.

The membership bears the responsibility to preserve the golf course and the burden of any alteration.

[T_MacWood]

Forgive me. Certainly they couldn't have worked their magic if not invited. On the other hand I'm confident they were not innocent inactive particpants in the process. No doubt they worked for the commission. And afterall they are the professionals they should know better than most what is good and what isn't--shouldn't they? But I see your point--we shouldn't blame the prostitute--right?

[Gary_Smith]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Each situation is different.

You have to ask yourself, why is a club retaining an architect?
Why are they being pro-active in their search and retention of an outside architect ?

In some cases the membership has predetermined that they want to change the golf course.  

In those cases the architect is merely the instrument to fulfill the will of the membership.

Had the club not hired architect "A", architect B, C....X, Y or Z would have done the work, accomplishing the goals established by the membership.

In other cases clubs seek architects to create master plans, mostly undoing internal membership changes wrought by green committees, Boards and Presidents over the years.
In those situations, many times, the clubs don't want to restore some or all of the previous changes.

I know of architects who are considered amongst the fair haired boys on this site who have changed golf courses, leaving their fingerprints, disrupting the continuity, and altering the basic architecture of the golf course, but, they seem to get a pass.

I look at Dick Wilson, who did some excellent work on his own, who altered courses like Hollywood and others.  At the time that he altered golf courses, do you feel that they felt that they were improving the golf course or disfiguring the golf course ?

The core fault for most of these changes lies squarely on the shoulders of the membership.  Had they not made the phone call many of these alterations never would have taken place.
They are the ones who sought and retained outside architects for the purpose of altering their golf course.

In other cases, they altered their course in-house, repeatedly.

You are one of those who enjoy research.  At Scioto and other courses it would be interesting to see what led to the retention of an outside architect, and if the eventual changes were predetermined before the architect ever set foot on the property.

I'm also curious as to why you don't object to Ross or Tillinghast coming in and altering golf courses, or, is the process of alteration only to be viewed in the context of the result, not the concept ?

While I agree with you on many changes to golf courses, you and I don't represent the membership at all of these courses at the time they effected the changes.
Our views, at the time, would be in the vast minority.
And, if we objected, the power base in charge would label us malcontents or know-it-alls, and we would be distanced from the process.

Unfortunately, because we care, the disfiguration would be the most upsetting and frustrating to us, not the _______/s who are responsible for the changes.  But, that's life.

It's very difficult to prevent the disfiguring of a golf course when those in power don't understand architecture or have determined that they want to make changes to the golf course, especially when that club has made prior changes under prior power bases.  

I don't say the architect is blameless, but the core fault lies with the membership or powerbase.

Once a golf course is altered, sadly, it's open season forever.

[T_MacWood]

The fact of the matter is Trent Jones and Dick Wilson made their reputations largely on their redesign work. There weren't C, D, E, F, X, Y, Z....just A and B. It was sad era when clubs (there is very long list) were hoodwinked into believing they needed these two to modernize their courses so they might continue to be championship tests. (the USGA was also part of the equation...as it is to today) These men promoted this activity and the clubs ate it up. It takes two to tango - club and architect - but these fellows are very much to blame. Afterall they are experts on design - both old and new. It appears to me greed and personal rivalary ruled their better judgment.

If you hire a hitman to knock of Tom Paul....are you the only one that goes to jail? No...you both get thrown in the pokey...you both committed the crime and must do the time. Unless the glove don't fit...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You reference "hoodwinked" as if it's an external force.

Neither RTJ or Dick Wilson went through the phone books and dialed up golf courses.

This was an internal process where clubs wanted to change their courses.  A process that began before either of these two architects ever set foot on the respective properties.

Perhaps, as TELEVISION emerged, so did the desire for memberships to alter their courses, based on what they viewed.

Let's revisit # 12 at GCGC for a second.

How did RTJ find his way from Montclair, NJ to Garden City, NY in the 60's ?

Internally, the club had to have in its collective mind that they wanted to change the 12th hole.

My guess is that the power base sought RTJ as the instrument to execute their plan.

My assumption is, that the change was submitted to the membership, and approved by the membership, PRIOR to any work being undertaken.

So who's at fault ?
If the power base didn't make the phone call, chances are that the hole would be as it always was, or modified internally, but not to the degree it exists today.

I also have to think that both RTJ and Dick Wilson believed in their architectural principles and that the work they were performing was in the best architectural interest of the golf course/club.

You have an open invite to come to my home course in New Jersey, Preakness Hills, a wonderful Tucker course, where fairways seemlessly transition into greens.  A course with 14 direction changes, doglegs right, doglegs left, as good a variety of par 3's as you'll find anywhere, and see for yourself what Brian Silva and others have done to this wonderful golf course.  And, all of it, with a few exceptions that I know of, was done with committee, Board and/or membership approval.  Like all golf courses, once changes have been made, the domino effect takes hold, and the golf course is subjected to open season, forever.  Hopefully, restoration work will be considered in the near future.

[T_MacWood]

Who ever called who....the fact is that Trent Jones and Dick Wilson left trail of redesigns from coast to coast. No matter what they believed in or didn't believe in...it was dark era for golf architecture because so many fine courses were altered.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I wonder, if given the choice today, if these courses would retain the changes or opt to return to their original form ?

The next question is, why haven't they undone the work you indicate was completed during the dark ages of golf course architecture ?

Why does that work remain now that we're out of that era ?

[Matt_Cohn]

Quick comments...

15 fantastic holes, and then there's 3, 5 and 6.

Can anyone comment of those mounds left of 7 were there in the beginning at all? They look weird. Great green though.

Watch for lots and lots of layups from fairway bunkers at both Inverness (Senior Open) and Oak Hill (PGA) this summer. Both sets of fairway bunkers are intensely deep, and the ones at inverness slope downhill towards the front lip (!).

[Brad Klein]

Pat Mucci,

from your comments, I can't tell if you have ever been involved in any process of renovation/restoration or have any idea how these things unfolded in past decades.

First you attribute way too much power to the membership. Most were helpless in this; it was the act of a small group of power brokers at each club

Second, you attribute far too much to long-term rational planning. The vast bulk of this work was carried out by salesmen-hucksters called golf course architects, none of whom ever walked into a club with a systematic plan or idea. No one had ever heard of restoration until the late-1980s. The USGA and the PGA were all-persuasive as well here. There was only a handful of architects working anyway and they were powerful salesmen. Most of them were egomanics who would never tolerate anything except imposing their idenmtity on the place. If clubs managed to resist or avoid this, it was either due to accident or to cheapness on their part for never having done any renovation work at all.

I do think it's a valid point to ask why the renovation work of a Ross or Tillinghast was okay in the 1920s but why renovation work is criticized today. The answer is, by the way, that most of the time, they were reworking mediocre holes. But also, there was no one watching the ship in those days and no one who had any thought of valuing architecture. I think you need to appreciate that restoraton, as a distinct branch of remodeling and renovation, is only fifteen years old and is still only embraced by a small (if growing) coterie of students of the game.

[michael_j_fay]

I honestly believe that every green chairman, club president and superintendent that ever initiated a modernization program did so to present a better golf course to the membership. There were many influences, the most obvious one was the redo of Oakland Hills in the early 50's by RT Jones. If you travel to the midwest you will find at many of the championship courses the same type of work that was done at Oakland Hills.

As much as RT Jones said that he attempted to remain within the style of the original architect, he really did not. His mission was to put a significant imprint on the course and grow his reputation and his business. Due to the naivity of the people in charge at these courses he managed to skate on what I consider grave and wanton destruction.

Of course, others in the Architectural field saw the success of RT Jones and jumped on the bandwagon. What developed was a cadre of lesser light Architects screwing up the masterpieces designed by the best of the best.

The result was that many, many fine layouts took on the features of Architects that never designed anything of note. Incorporated as well were the desires of green chairmen and club presidents and superintendents. It is difficult, apparently, to resist the temptation to do some imprinting when in the position of power.

Alas, this nonsense continues to this day. I will not point out specifics as I refuse to give any acknowledgement to a bad Architect.

Restoration is a science that has evolved significantly over the past 15 years. There are a number of Architects that are very good at it and produce wonderful results. Restoration is cheaper and easier than renovation in most cases. A good deal of the work can be done in-house. The secret is to weed out the pretenders. It is imperitive that those choosing an Architect look at the work that Architect has done. A little investigation can lead the planners in the right direction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Klein & Michael J Fay,

If we agree on how and why these changes occured, then why isn't there a groundswell movement, internally and externally to undo  most of these changes and restore these courses ?

[T_MacWood]

At Scioto I don't think it would be possible. Over the years they have tried to Ross-ify the numerous bunkers built by Wilson and company. It would take a Shadow Creek-like effort to re-establish the stream on #17 and #8 (one of the great short par-5's in golf) where new ponds were built - and I don't think an aritificial stream would be much benefit. The biggest loss: every greens was rebuilt.  There are no original Ross green plans that I know of and the greens have been gone for forty years - few if any can remember them.

I suspect it is a similar story at Inverness. We are not talking minor changes - like moving a bunker here or there - we're talking about completely destorying golf holes and building new ones over old and/or building new holes on different ground.

At Scioto the USGA led them to believe they could host another US Open if they 'modernized' - unfortunately that US Open never came. They did get the US Am - which they were led to believe was going to be prequil - but never got the Open that they desired.

It's a damn shame. Daniel Wexler could devote a complete  book to the great courses and great holes destroyed by the duo of Wilson and Jones (I'd include the USGA to make a threesome) - perhaps that could be his next book.