[Jon Spaulding]

I recently had the chance to take in the "new" Cal Club. It is an inspired effort by Kyle Phillips and his people, and has been covered via review and/or threads on this site. The greens crew must be commended for getting the fescue to the state that it is in after 12 months. While I held the "old" Cal Club in decent esteem, the new version is a substantial improvement, which should bring it elevated status with raters as well as the beard pulling contingent.

The weakest holes on any golf course are normally the foundation of criticism. Would CPC "go to 11" without the 18th.....Garden City if #12 was restored......LA North with a decent first hole.......so, what happens when you get what you wish for?

Cal Club is that rare bird. The "old" version of the course contained 3 holes which were very weak; #2, 3, 7. From the ashes, three new golf holes were created; all are amongst the best on the front nine, if not the peninsula. (My recollection is that the old #8 was a decent golf hole....someone please clarify if I am wrong on that) Once the dust settles, it will be these new holes which primarily elevate the place to new heights, along with the restorative measures on the other holes.

Any there other examples of something like this, in a positive light? I am aware of NSW #6; and no, not looking for ANGC or your local Trump course as an example.

[Tom_Doak]

Jon:

Part of the reason the front nine at the Cal Club was not up to snuff "before" is that several of the holes had to be completely changed from the MacKenzie version due to road construction along the northern side of the property ... one or two of the original holes were actually in the road.  So you are comparing the new holes not to the classic originals, but to some band-aid solution done in the 1940's or 50's.  (I don't know when those holes were changed.)

I think Kyle and crew did a great job with redesigning the front nine on the more restricted property and making it fit with the restored back nine, but it was kind of a special case.  Usually, tearing up classic holes to make new and improved ones doesn't work so well.  But, there are many examples of that in the UK -- Rye, Muirfield, Royal Dornoch, etc.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Interesting topic.  Off hand, I can think of a few from major championships to discuss:

Pebble 5,
Medinah 15, 17 and 18
Oak Hill 6-7
SFCC 11-14 for road widening
Inverness 3-5 (?) for crowd room

I am sure there are others less famous, like Cal Club.  While the famous ones get debated, and doubt many would say they were huge improvements, I don't think its out of the realm of possibility that many courses have been improved by new holes.   What would be some other examples?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Just of your examples, I think the results are all over the map:

Pebble Beach #5 is not an improvement in my eyes.  It adds one more hole on the water at the expense of a disjointed routing, and the hole itself is not a great hole ... it's kind of a straightjacket between the cliff and the big houses to the left.

Medinah I don't really know that well, the changes may be an improvement (the old 18th sucked) but I didn't think was all that great before, anyway.

Oak Hill 6 & 7 were just an awful step backwards.

I thought restoring SFGC 13-14-15 would be a major improvement over the holes that had been rerouted in 1949 because of the road extension, but it has been much more divisive within the club than I anticipated ... some members apparently loved threading a couple of shots under the trees, and others just can't get over the politics of it all.

As I said before, there are some courses where the addition of newer holes was a clear win.  My highest-rated example is Royal Dornoch, where holes 7-11 were added in 1946.

[Tom Dunne]

The "Thistly Hollow" holes (2 through 8 ) at Portstewart were added in the '80s and definitely raised the course's profile a notch or two.

[Phil McDade]

Jon:

Most historical accounts view Flynn's Shinnecock as a major improvement over the Maconald/Raynor original, even though some of the original exists today, notably (I think) the current 7th.

Wexler's "Lost Links" has several examples in his section on lost holes. One of the more notable examples that I wasn't aware of until reading about it was the "horrible horseshoe" trio of 3-5 at Colonial, which Maxwell added prior to the US Open there in 1941. The three new holes followed roughly the same corridors as the original horseshoe, but added length and Maxwell's signature greens. But the club also had to redo #8, a par 3 played over a bend in the river, because of flooding issues.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think if we looked at all courses, and not just famous ones, as I just did, the number of improvements would be higher in general.  That is because a great course probably has its holes moved for non golf reasons since it had few bad holes to start with.  Most courses probably came with a few clunkers, and adding some new ones can only help if it removes those.

And I think most courses have changed routings more than we give credit for. Over time, things change.  Longer tee shots, safety, circulatoin problems come to light.  And in the non golf realm, roads, power lines, housing, flood damage all affect many, many courses.

Medinah as we knew it was a complete reroute a few years after opening, for example.  16 at ANGC is considered a much better hole and was a reroute and redesign.  No one alive now remembers the old SFGC.

[David Stamm]

The Horrible Horseshoe at Colonial was an improvement over the original, but of course, they lost perhaps the best hole on the course, the old number 8, when the Trinity River flooded. As far as present day, I need to think about that.

[Jon Spaulding]

Jon:

Part of the reason the front nine at the Cal Club was not up to snuff "before" is that several of the holes had to be completely changed from the MacKenzie version due to road construction along the northern side of the property ... one or two of the original holes were actually in the road.  So you are comparing the new holes not to the classic originals, but to some band-aid solution done in the 1940's or 50's.  (I don't know when those holes were changed.)

I think Kyle and crew did a great job with redesigning the front nine on the more restricted property and making it fit with the restored back nine, but it was kind of a special case.  Usually, tearing up classic holes to make new and improved ones doesn't work so well.  But, there are many examples of that in the UK -- Rye, Muirfield, Royal Dornoch, etc.

Thanks Tom; I was aware of the changes made to the road holes. My understanding is that #2 was the primary change, and #3 just got the tee relocated to accomodate the road (with the silly pond). It was certainly a mess; not perhaps to the scale of a Lake Merced, but bad.

Judging solely by the 1938 aerial, one might make the case that today's #2/3 are better than the original holes.

Thanks for the Dornoch example. I hope to get there one day and understand what was done, why they were better than the original. Hopefully a certain Stanford graduate will be available.....

[Jon Spaulding]

Interesting topic.  Off hand, I can think of a few from major championships to discuss:

Pebble 5,
Medinah 15, 17 and 18
Oak Hill 6-7
SFCC 11-14 for road widening
Inverness 3-5 (?) for crowd room

I am sure there are others less famous, like Cal Club.  While the famous ones get debated, and doubt many would say they were huge improvements, I don't think its out of the realm of possibility that many courses have been improved by new holes.   What would be some other examples?

Please not another Pebble #5 thread..... I would say the course is not improved by the new 5th.

You will draw venom from the Ross crowd with any discussion of Oak Hill being better than the original.

The revised 13-15 at SFGC (1950ish thru 2005?) were certainly not an "improvement" on the original. Today's version/interpretation of the Tilly work is better; not by the gigantic margin which the beard strokers want you to believe......but it is better.

I'm looking for cases which are very distinct and where there is a general consensus as to it being an improvement.

[Jon Spaulding]

Jon:

Most historical accounts view Flynn's Shinnecock as a major improvement over the Maconald/Raynor original, even though some of the original exists today, notably (I think) the current 7th.

Wexler's "Lost Links" has several examples in his section on lost holes. One of the more notable examples that I wasn't aware of until reading about it was the "horrible horseshoe" trio of 3-5 at Colonial, which Maxwell added prior to the US Open there in 1941. The three new holes followed roughly the same corridors as the original horseshoe, but added length and Maxwell's signature greens. But the club also had to redo #8, a par 3 played over a bend in the river, because of flooding issues.

Thanks Phil; my limited understanding of Shinnecock is that the Flynn design was an effective wipeout of the MacRaynor work; over the same property, but leaving a few things to cling to which you mention. I think there's a par 4 still left as well.

Similar in nature to Thomas & Bells 1928 wipeout of Fowler's LA North, which was a complete redux with a few corridors remaining the same.

I'm really looking cases where a few of the "awful" holes are wholly replaced for the good of the course.

Colonial "might" be an example. Although photos I've seen of the original 8th lead me to believe that it might be worse off.

[Carl Nichols]

I'm not sure whether this course or example qualifies, but Congressional recently took its old #18, a par 3 over water toward the clubhouse, flipped it around so that it's now a par 3 across the water away from the clubhouse, and made it #10, so that the course now ends with a great par 4 (the old #17).  Looking at just the holes themselves, I think the new #10 is just a slight improvement over the old #18 [the tee shot from right in front of the clubhouse across the water is really cool], but the finishing hole is now so much better than the old #18 that I think it counts as a significant overall improvement.

[Phil McDade]

Jon:

I have not seen it, only read about it, but I do think the new 8th at Colonial doesn't hold up to the old 8th. Wexler quotes Byron Nelson as saying the old 8th was one of the best par 3s he'd played.

I do sense from Wexler's book and other subsequent accounts that the "new" Maxwell horseshoe was an improvement in those three holes vs. the original trio.

In spending a fair amount of time last fall at Milwaukee CC, I noted in some threads that the par 5 3rd and the par 4 14th were redone by the club. I haven't been able to dig up any originals of those holes; I think Renaissance did do some work there. The 14th is one tough par 4, with a tee shot over the Milwaukee River and a tough approach to a very good green.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Is the "new" Erin Hills, sans Dell hole going to be better than the original? 

Although there are no newly routed holes, is the "new TPC Sawgrass" better than the original?

Is the new Hazeltine (with reroutes to at least 16 and 17) better than the original for the tournament this week?

How about whatever changes were made to Turnberry after it was used as an airfield?

Would BP be better if they rerouted the 18th as was considered?

Was TOC better at 22 holes? How about Prestwick at 12 holes?

I guess we will never have a consensus as to whether new holes are better or worse.  After a while, we forget that the older courses have been rerouted in many cases.

[David Stamm]

While 8 at Colonial is a pretty good hole, it didn't blow me away. I suspect from the photos I've seen that old 8 would've been much more memorable. As far as the Horseshoe, obviously who's to say, but if Maxwell was brought in and the stretch of holes he did is the most famous part of the course, I'm guessing it surpassed what was there. However, it was done to toughen the course up, which doesn't always mean better. 3 and 4 are very hard holes, but 5 is the best of the three. All are very, very difficult. Duran, Clouser and Brauer have more experience there than I, so I'll defer to them. Maybe Tony Nysse can chime in as well.

[RSLivingston_III]

Was TOC better at 22 holes? How about Prestwick at 12 holes?

I don't believe we can discuss historic courses without considering the play characteristics of the equipment in use on them at those times.
Personally, I would give about anything to have a go at the original 12 at Prestick with a set composed of Morris wood clubs and John Grey irons.

[Matthew Rose]

I figured Hazeltine 16 and 17 might garner more discussion, with the PGA coming up. I don't think I've ever seen the originals, but with all the press and accolades that #16 gets, I figure it is probably a no-brainer.

How was the old #8 at Colonial different to the one that is there now?

[Chris Cupit]

Jon:

In spending a fair amount of time last fall at Milwaukee CC, I noted in some threads that the par 5 3rd and the par 4 14th were redone by the club. I haven't been able to dig up any originals of those holes; I think Renaissance did do some work there. The 14th is one tough par 4, with a tee shot over the Milwaukee River and a tough approach to a very good green.

Phil,

I agree about Milwaukee--it was one of the best courses I'd ever seen and one I'd never heard of.  Really neat course.  In looking at some old pics #10, the long par 4 going out toward the river looked greatly improved by some selective tree removal and grubbing out of the underbrush--a stunning hole.

Other favorites at Milwaukee were the par threes on the front, #9-#11 and #18.

The only hole I thought had a "flaw" was #7 where some trees overhung the right edge of the rough and crept into the fairway.  They blocked the ideal line to the green and made the right bunker(s) in the fairway kind of pointless strategically.  Also you could be in the fairway bunker and have the double penalty of being behind the tree?!!  If the fairway bunker had been extended or another one added and the trees cut back, carrying the bunkers would have opened up a great angle to the green and would have given the player something to think about off the tee.  As it was, it was a "one shot" only tee shot--you had to hit it center or left and some guys even hit three woods to prevent going through the fairway.  Sorry about the long rant on the only shot that I had any quibble with.

[Chris Cupit]

Some obvious improvements at Augusta:

Moving #10 green to its current location (also may have helped preserve the last tiny vestige of a MacKenzie bunker) since the big bunker really became just a visual "tourist bunker" to look at.

#11 changing from an ultra sharp dogleg right that was almost drive-able to the hole today (or the hole of 445 yards and less trees on the right?)

#16 as already mentioned

I'd love to hear thoughts on the relatively new 16th hole at RCD.  I enjoyed the old drive-able hole and have not seen the new one.

[Colin Sheehan]

Now that I have seen an aerial of the original Country Club of Fairfield, I appreciate the lateral shift in design merit that took place to accommodate the need for range and relocation of clubhouse. The 17th and 18th holes are among the completely non-Raynor ones and yet I have always admired them and think the provide a strong finish. (I'm not arguing that the course SHOULD have been changed, just that the addition of these two holes were not a serious step-down.) Seventeen is a 190 yard par-three into the prevailing wind to a diagonal push-up green guarded by water. I don't necessarily love how the false front works at times, but it is a heck of a penultimate hole in a match or stroke-play round. And 18 -- straight up the hill at 390, with two elegant fairway bunkers on the right, and a back-to-front pitched, elevated green in front of the clubhouse veranda -- makes for a thrilling end to the round where no 1-up lead is safe. It was after years of playing the course that it became apparent weren't Raynor holes. The current fifth and tenth greens, meanwhile, were always clearly the work of someone else.

[Tom_Doak]

Phil M:

The 3rd and 14th holes at Milwaukee CC were re-done about 8-10 years ago "by another architect".  The club was very unhappy with how the work blended in with the old holes, and that's how we became involved.  The third hole was altered to make room for a longer practice range; I don't know what the reason was for changing the 14th, I think they were just lengthening it by making it more of a dogleg into some ground they hadn't used.  (It resulted in a VERY long walk to #15, so one of our changes has been to lengthen #15 considerably to shorten the green-to-tee walk.)

I was just there a couple of weeks ago for their 80th anniversary.  The course was looking good and we had some discussions about further pursuit of the ideas we have recommended.

[Carl Nichols]

I'd love to hear thoughts on the relatively new 16th hole at RCD.  I enjoyed the old drive-able hole and have not seen the new one.

Chris:
I don't know anything about the old hole, but I really liked what's there now.  I played it twice and hit two really good, practically identical drives (with my driver) that must've landed within ten yards of each other.  The first initiallly kicked straight and then, remarkably, went left (seemingly uphill) into the front left greenside bunker.  The second kicked slightly right, so based on my earlier experience I thought it was going to end up near the front of the green, but then it caught the slope front and right of the green and ended up about 55 yards short and way below the green, leaving me a difficult pitch.  Pretty cool to watch practically identical shots end up in such different places.  

[Emil Weber]

At Royal Queensland, the whole course has been replaced with a new Micheal Clayton layout. I'have heard many people saying it's better than the old one, but I have yet to play it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()