[PThomas]

going thru some old Links magazine isses as winter came back to Chicago today , this course was one of their featured courses....thoughts from those who've played there?

[Deucie Bies]

I haven't played it yet, but I hear very good things.  I hear fox chapel is good as well.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I've played it enough over the years (always in Pennsylvania State Amateur Championships). What would you like to know about it?

For starters, the tee shot off #1 is perhaps the most dramatic elevation change tee shot (downhill) I've ever played and getting back up to the 18th hole (a par 3) from the 17th green to the 18th hole (near that high #1 tee) requires a ride in an industrial elevator.

[PThomas]

Paul:

I've played it enough over the years (always in Pennsylvania State Amateur Championships). What would you like to know about it?

For starters, the tee shot off #1 is perhaps the most dramatic elevation change tee shot (downhill) I've ever played and getting back up to the 18th hole (a par 3) from the 17th green to the 18th hole (near that high #1 tee) requires a ride in an industrial elevator.

Hi Tom, hope all is well

was just wondering about the overall quality of the course...I have yet to play any golf in Pittsburgh.....one always hears about Oakmont and Fox Chapel in Pitts , of course...is Pitts Field Club on the next level below those 2?

another GCAer always raves to me about Longue Vue....comments on that one Tom?

[JohnV]

The Field Club is a very good course, but not in the same league as Oakmont or Fox Chapel.  As Tom said, the first hole is a very dramatic shot and the ride in the elevator can be scary as a group was stuck in there for nearly one hour during a tournament a few years ago.  There are other stories about the elevator that I won't go into.

The course is good, but I'm not thrilled by the ending which is 3-4-3 and the 18th has a green that was rebuilt by Arthur Hills and is very out of character with the rest of the course.

[TEPaul]

"and the ride in the elevator can be scary as a group was stuck in there for nearly one hour during a tournament a few years ago."


JohnV:

I was there that day. I can't remember the tournament but I think it may've been the Pennsylvania Open. I was over near the end of the third hole and there was this God Almight sparking and loud crash on one of the power lines on the road near me (a lightening strike). That entire side of the Fox Chapel's community lost power for over an hour.

I was also at the door of the elevator when those players and their caddies finally got out after hanging up in there for over an hour with no light, no air, etc. They were pretty quiet and obviously shaken. I asked them what they wanted to do about playing the 18th or not or if they wanted some time to collect themselves if they wanted to finish the 18th and the round. They were all pretty good about it though and they just went right to the tee and played the hole and finished.

What would the Rules latitude be for them after something like that?

[David Stamm]

The course is good, but I'm not thrilled by the ending which is 3-4-3 and the 18th has a green that was rebuilt by Arthur Hills and is very out of character with the rest of the course.

Why is that not surprising.


An example that can be brought into the thread Deruntz started about reno work.

[TEPaul]

Even though the Pittsburgh Field Club has had more architects through there over the years (according to C&W) than practically any other course I'm aware of, I don't mind that 18th hole and green at all. It's a nice off-beat thing, in my opinion, to see a course end with a par 3 and certainly one like that one.

And I've seen a lot of good tournaments there (and played in some), and I can tell you it does generate a lot of excitement when a player gets on that tee at the end of a tournament. It's a pretty tough shot in a tournament at that point and there are two ways to make bogie there in a heartbeat, and that is to miss that green either left or right! 

[George Pazin]

The Field Club is a very good course, but not in the same league as Oakmont or Fox Chapel.  As Tom said, the first hole is a very dramatic shot and the ride in the elevator can be scary as a group was stuck in there for nearly one hour during a tournament a few years ago.  There are other stories about the elevator that I won't go into.

The course is good, but I'm not thrilled by the ending which is 3-4-3 and the 18th has a green that was rebuilt by Arthur Hills and is very out of character with the rest of the course.

I haven't played PFC, but I did spend some time there during the 03 Am, as it was the 2nd course for stroke play qualifying. (Spent a few cool hours hanging by the 18th with JVB and his Oregon friends who qualified for the Am, but that's a story for another day.)

I thought the sequence from 13-16 looked absolutely fantastic: short challenging par 4, long downhill par 3 (one of the few downhill par 3s I've ever thought looked really cool and fun to play), shortish par 5 (I think) over the ridge and then the par 3 16th, which has a terrific green complex.

I was always under the impression that PFC was considered the #2 course in the Burgh by the non-gca lovers (gca lovers tend to favor Raynor's Fox Chapel), but I could certainly be wrong about that.

Shiv, I'd have thunk a big hitter such as yourself would love the 1st; gotta think Matt Ward would looooooooooove the chance for the longball off the first tee.

 

I'm certain others on here would know far more than I - and perhaps they can share - but I think PFC has a pretty bizarro architectural history, with many many architects making changes to the course, including Tillie, if I'm not mistaken (I vaguely recall seeing it on a list in The Course Beautiful).

Can anyone share anything about that history?

[Jonathan Cummings]

(a lightening strike).

lucky it wasn''t a darkening strike or you wouldn't have been able to see!

(sorry Tom, I couldn't resist!)

J

[TEPaul]

"Can anyone share anything about that history?"

GeorgeP:

I have it around here somewhere but I can't lay my hands on it at the moment. I recall it sure is pretty complicated particularly from the oldest iteration of the course. I seem to recall the 18th or finishing hole climbing the hill from somewhere on the 17th hole to somewhere around the practice putting green or parking lot around the clubhouse. That hole must have been quite a climb.

[Dan Boerger]

Played this course a couple of years ago. Really fine track with great green sites and in terrific condition. Could do (IMO) with some tree trimming. Exceptional clubhouse to boot.

[Matt_Ward]

JVB:

Your assessment of the course is spot on -- but clearly the course gets little outside appreciation once you go beyond a 100-mile circle of Steel City.

[TEPaul]

"JVB:
Your assessment of the course is spot on -- but clearly the course gets little outside appreciation once you go beyond a 100-mile circle of Steel City."


Matt:

I can tell you that the Pittsburgh Field Club gets a lot of appreciation from the Pennsylvania Golf Association and all the tournament players I've ever known from around the state for over twenty some years now.

I may be mistaken but I think it was the first state amateur I ever played in around 1984 or 1985 and not long after I got to Pennsylvania.

I have fond memories of it for that reason and I think I've played in or officiated about 4-5 more tournaments at the Pittsburgh Field Club like that over the years.

That first state amateur of mine there sort of came to mind again last year because of Rocco Mediate's showing against Tiger in the Torrey Open. I didn't know anyone on that circuit back then in my first state am except Buddy Marucci and maybe a handful of others. I saw him in the locker-room and he asked me what the hell I was doing there. I said I was playing in the state amateur and he just said: "Oh!?"

Anyway, Marucci hit a huge hook into the trees off that first big high tee in his first shot in the tournament and made a triple. But he chipped his way back over the next three days and on the final day he was playing with Rocco Mediate who I believe had a five shot lead on him with nine holes to go and Buddy ran him down and won his first of four state amateurs there.

After Rocco's performance in the Open last year I told him I'd like to get the details of how he ran Rocco down from five shots back with nine to go at the Pittsburgh Field Club back around 1985.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

I don't count you as part of the golf masses. You are an insider -- no doubt about that.

Ask most people about Pittsburgh golf and the likely only real answer you will get is the naming of Oakmont.

I salute the Pennsy Golf Assoc for using the site but in terms of real understanding of what exists in the state it's likely -- as it is in Jersey with the likes of a Plainfield or Forsgate -- that few really know the depth of courses that exist.

That was my only point.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

What difference does it really make if most people in Pennsylvania don't know Pittsburgh Field Club very well or most people in New Jersey don't know Plainfield well? Do you think it makes a jot of difference to Pittsburgh Field Club or Plainfield or the majority of golfers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey? If you do I'd be happy to hear the reasons----seriously.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Let me explain this to you -- again -- OK.

The issue of the thread as the term "sleeper."

Those "in the know" (I count you as one of those) already know much about the place.

My point -- again -- is that for many people outside the 100-mile radius of the location there is likely little awareness, if any, of just how good a number of these clubs are in and around the Steel City. Ditto if you ask some golfer who lives in Missouri or Oklahoma about the qualities of a place like Plainfield or Forsgate.

Heck, until the US Open came to Bethpage in 2002 few knew anything of Bethpage Black outside the immediate NYC metro area. For many of these folks the phrase Bethpage Black was more likely referring to a type of colored crayon than a golf course.

My comments were made in reference to golfers. Tom, try to keep this in mind, your associations and those like you are keenly aware of what is going on within golf. However, there are even more people who play the game and will only see the names of places like Oakmont. Many of these people I am referencing are golf knowledgeable but they are not really died-in-the-wool lovers of design who can discern the qualities of places that fly below the usual radar screens.

Simple as that ...

[TEPaul]

Matt:

I understand everything you say and I don't disagree with it. I only asked you what does it matter to clubs like Pittsburgh Field Club or Plainfield on the one hand, and the general golfers of Pennsylvania and New Jersey on the other hand?

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

As you have just witnessed with the lates Digest ratings you can see that the level of "understanding" among supposed "smart" people is really lacking.

Places like Fox Chapel and to a slightly lesser degree Pittsburgh Field Club are very special places. Their emphasis, as you already know, is really about design and not just being some sort of fad layout that will quickly fade with time as many of the ones Digest heralds will invariably do.

The clubs themselves -- like PFC and Plainfield, to name just two -- should be better known to golfers outside their immediate circles of influence. I would hope that a publication like Digest which reaches a great many people beyond architetural junkies would enlighten people so that the approproiate level of recognition would be accorded.

Try to keep in mind I am fully aware that many of these clubs tout the fact that they could care less about ratings. That may be their "official" position but I can tell you this -- they do read the findings and for many of them it does matter.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

I appreciate everything you just said in that last post but it is also why I've never liked magazine ratings and particularly RANKINGS.

I don't think they serve or offer much of any educational purpose to readers about golf course architecture. They're just a ranked list (numerical) and that doesn't teach anyone anything about the ramifications of good or bad architecture. All it does is create some kind of "wish list" for general readers that is never going to be realized anyway because most of these courses that have always been ranked by these magazines (like GD's Top 100) are private anyway.

If those golf magazines really want to educate their general readership on golf course architecture they need to write about each and every course's architecture they list in depth and explain why they think it's good or whatever. But of course those golf magazines are never going to do something like that because it obviously isn't profitable for them to do it that way which is the only way it will ever be remotely educational for readers interested in golf course architecture.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

The mission of a publication should be to "educate" people on why they elevate certain courses over others.

The problem lies in the methodology used by the pubs. They think engaging "free consultants" gives them an added benefit -- it doesn't. I'd much rather have the findings of one learned person -- even if I disagree with them in certain instances -- because you would likely get a far more consistent approach.

Tom, the hodge podge pot of golf courses cited has no real educational value. I agree with that -- it's just a slew of courses that happen to get high marks from people scattered across the country. Nothing has been demonstrated on why such courses are being feasted.

The sad reality is that much of the top tier stuff that exists today is not being hailed by Digest. The exclusion of places like Ballyneal is one good example. I have always been a huge fan of Black Mesa. I can name plenty of others.

The glory of the Internet age is that other sources of info are now available. Digest used to have that province -- not any longer.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

I agree with what you said above, and I always have. These rankings just by numbers with nothing else provided definitely do not provide much of any golf architectural education to readers.

Of course even the golf magazines seem to admit that their readers really aren't even interested in golf architecture or an education in it.

What then does that tell you about what those magazines are doing with those numerical ranking lists? Essentially for the vast majority of golfer/readers it's nothing much more than a big tease.

[Dean DiBerardino]

“The Olde History of the Pittsburg Field Club” by James C. Hayes has a fairly detailed history of the changes to the PFC containing a drawing of the original course along with the hole descriptions by Findlay.  Also contained are some really cool fold-out panoramic pictures of the golf course in its infancy.  I’ll try and summarize some of the info below with a few images:

August, 1914:  Alex Findlay spent several days visiting the property and laid out the course.

June, 1915:  The golf course opens.

The original Findlay layout:


Later in 1915:  Donald Ross (most likely one of his associates) creates plans to change holes #2 through #6, submits the plans to the membership in 1916 and the changes are implemented in the spring of 1917.

Concerning Tillinghast:  “Alfred(?) Tillinghast’s reference listings include The Pittsburgh Field Club, but there is no record of what he did.”

October of 1922:  After the club purchased and additional 23 acres of land, Willie Park, Jr. was called in to oversee a “major restructuring” of the back nine.  Park drew up plans that were submitted to the club in September of 1923 which included the abandonment of holes #12, #13 & #14.  #12 was a downhill, 600 yard, par 6 to an island green.  #13, named “Gibraltar”, was a 165 yard par three going back up the hill/ridge.  The membership rejected the plan.

The rejected Park plan:


Spring of 1925:  Emil Loeffler was hired to prepare a report and recommendations for changes to the golf course.  In July of 1925 Loeffler submitted two plans to the membership for changes.  Plan A provided for the retention of hole #12 and #13 while Plan B provided for the elimination of holes #12, #13 & #14.  The club voted to go forward with Plan B and the changes were completed by spring of 1928.

Plan A by Loeffler:


Plan B by Loeffler:


A current aerial of PFC:


1938:  Hole #18 is changed from a short par four to a par three along with the construction of the industrial elevator.

1960’s:  “Xenophen Hassenplug, a member of the Club, created Field Club Lake as a water storage site and designed the new road. “

Also: “Robert Trent Jones in 1952 and Arthur Hills in 1985 made course recommendations.”  There are no other explanations in the book of what actual changes were implemented by the recommendations of Jones and Hills.

Concerning the most recent history of the 18th hole, a friend of mine was an assistant professional there and passed the following information along to me.

In 2000, the 18th hole was changed again.  The site for the green was lowered by about 15 feet so the hole would not play as uphill.  A wildly undulating and challenging green was built with very little cupable space on it.

This past winter the 18th hole at PFC was changed again because the most recent #18 was not well liked by the members.  This time, the hole was rebuilt and reportedly plays a bit downhill.  This was done by moving the tee a bit up the hill to the west and moving the green in the opposite direction downhill to the east.  The hole is due to open on April 18.

A few other images…..

From the first tee in 1937:


From the first tee 70 years later:


Old holes #12 & #13…..

This image of the original #12 was taken from a position near the current 13th green looking SW.  #12 tee is at about 4 o'clock and #12 green is at about 8 o'clock:


Standing in the old 12th fairway looking down to the island green.


Near old #13 tee looking back up the hill/ridge towards #12 fairway to the left and #13 green to the right:


Again, most of the info above came directly from the PFC book.  Hopefully, I have not done it any injustice.

[Paul Richards]

This is certainly one of the underrated courses in that area.  Oakmont and Fox Chapel get all the hype, but in my book, it's the second best of the three.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dean,

That is simply an awesome post.

THAT is the exact kind of thing that is the too often unrealized potential of this site.

Thank you!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()