Untouched classic courses

[TEPaul]

On the Chicago vs Philly topic Lynn Shackelford asked if there is a club in Philly that has remained as "untouched" as Chicago Golf Club.

I wish I knew the answer to that. I feel I should somehow but I don't. Then I started thinking about what "untouched" or maybe "unchanged" might mean.

Obviously, a course that has never had an architect make changes to it (except possibly its original architect) since opening would be one meaning. There're probably a number of courses like that for a variety of reasons; ie, true interest in preservation of original architecture to general lack of money.

But then there are the incredibly pervasive "changes" that clubs make to their courses without an architect, the primary one probably being tree planting (natural or otherwise) even if all architectural features all remained in place and "untouched". It's just amazing how many courses in America, though, went through a similar multi-decade cycle of tree planting or natural growth, fairway, green and bunker shrinkage etc. And more amazing that all went through those "changes" for a very similar list of reasons.

But the changes to courses from natural evolution can have a very large effect too, over many decades. Just the constant playing of the game on them as well as ongoing standard maintenance practices has interesting and very similar effects, creating significant "changes".

It would seem to me that if a club wanted to preserve the architecture of their original golf course they could do that quite easily by keeping architects off the property, green committees from any form of tampering etc, etc.

But for a course to actually attempt to slow down or stop "evolution" (even some form of benign neglect) would be highly unusual and would probably take a very clever and dedicated effort over time--and involve lots of time and probably lots of money--if even possible at all.

In other words is there a course out there somewhere over maybe 50-70 years old that has basically remained the same in almost every way? That would certainly fulfill all the definitions of "untouched". And would it even be worthwhile to try to slow down the rather comprehensive "changes" of natural evolution? Wouldn't that be a little like trying to keep the lines on a beautiful person's face from forming and the hair from turning grey as they aged gracefully (certainly without facelifts!). Probably it would.  

Courses really are living things, so they are going to change naturally, that's for sure. So maybe that should never be considered "touching" or "changing" them. But how about a course of that age that may not even need "restoration" even to roll back "evolutionary changes"?

Is there a course in American like that? And is that even a good thing, if there was?

Would Chicago Golf Club be the best example? For some reason I keep thinking about Cypress Point too.

If there is a course like that somewhere, and if so, how and why did it happen?

[ChipOat]

The now-defunct Links Golf Club on Long Island was absolutely like that.

With all the pruning that's been happening in the last 10 years, I'd say National's pretty close with the exception of #11 tee box and #14 green (a couple of back tees added, too, but I'm assuming that doesn't count).

Does Perry Maxwell's work on some of the greens disqualify NGLA?

The original 9 holer at Philadelphia Cricket is probably "all original" if you want to consider it a "real" golf course.

Of course, I'm one of the big proponents of "improving" really good golf courses even given the significant risks that the members involved will screw something up.

[Chris_Clouser]

Chip,

I am curious if you have any specifics as to what Maxwell actually did at National.  George Bahto and I have discussed this a few times and neither of us can find any evidence of Maxwell's work at National, but he is credited as doing work there by several notable sources.  The question is what did he do?  It is either a case like Merion where he visited the course and is assumed to have done some work there or he was really good and made the work so it blended so well with MacDonald's layout.  The only thing we could surmise is that he may have done some work on the 1st or the 10th green, with me hedging on the 1st and I think George was leaning towards the 10th.  If anyone else has any indication, I would love to hear about it.

Oh, it is also believed that Maxwell did some work at the Links Club as well.

[TEPaul]

Chip and Chris:

I might offer a slightly different take on Maxwell and NGLA. I sure can't substantiate it but it's beginning to taste like this scenario. Whatever Maxwell did NGLA might be subtly expunging him from records and actual fact! They might be expunging anyone else too who ever touched the place! What the hell, that's OK with me--I actually like to see a great golf course go back and fall totally in love with their original architect all over again, like a MacDonald and a Crump and Fownes or maybe even Wilson!

To me, Maxwell just might have been about the greatest green builder and green redesigner in golf's history! Somebody on here will probably figure it out one of these days anyway even if it can't be substantiated! I bet Coore could figure it out--I swear he could probably recognize a Maxwell green he'd never even seen before from 5,000ft!

There may have even been some other grubby and impure hands on NGLA too at some point--like maybe even Jack Nicklaus, of all people. What about #11--or maybe #8 too? Did somebody add those berms across both holes hiding the road! If they did I can certainly understand why, and they don't bother me!

But did C.B. do those berms? Not very likely! If MacDonald ever saw a car on that road it was probably his own!

So I think my theory of back to the original architect and expunge anything else might be just barely OK to mention about NGLA but if you guys try and dig any deeper on this, you better get used to looking over your shoulder!

How about you GeorgeB? Are you a searcher, an expunger or just zipper-lipped?

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

Berms on #8 and #11 added 10-15 years ago after club bigwig nearly drilled car w/low liner off 8th tee.  As w/most things at such clubs - issue had been discussed for years.  Same big money explosion that created Atlantic GC also increased traffic on that road at least 10-fold during summer months.

Chris Clouser:

If George Bahto can't verify Maxwell's work, then my anecdotal hearsay on the subject from some forgotten source must be exactly that.

[Chris_Clouser]

Chip,

Go ahead and e-mail me about it and I can see how far it gets me as it really does make a nice story if I can find some substance, since NGLA was the course that originally inspired Maxwell to play the game and later to design.  I would say NGLA and St. Andrews were probably his main inspirations in his designing career.  The more I look, the more I find several commonalities with his designs and these two courses.  Most people just attribute his design philosophy to being strictly learned from MacKenzie, which can't be farther from the truth.  He worked with the man, but his design philosophy was much different than Macs.  You only need to look at the work at Augusta that he did to see that.  

chris.clouser@aimco.com

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Maybe Ron Forse will comment, but Lehigh is supposedly 95% original Flynn true to what he first built.  From a tree standpoint, Lehigh could be a model for tree management as you never feel claustrophobic and there are beautiful vistas everywhere.  And wait till you see it once they restore some of the width to the fairways and re-attach bunkers that were left isolated in the rough!!  Furthermore, with the new irrigation, John has much better water control and can keep the approaches firm allowing the run up shot which is a great option on all but a few holes!  
Mark

[TEPaul]

Chris & Chip:

I really doubt that Maxwell at NGLA is just antecdotal. Maxwell is listed just below C.B. MacDonald in C&W and although C&W have been known to make an occasional mistake they probably checked extra on NGLA. Under Maxwell in C&W is (R 1.) which in their key language indicates he did redesign one hole whatever that might have been on that hole. What they generally uncovered on courses was in checking with the club and their records.

Just below Maxwell in the C&W NGLA listing is RTJ listed twice with only an (R) beside his name each time which means according to C&W he could have done anything both times. I did hear Nicklaus's name too from a member who lives out there and has been there for many years and knows a lot about the course.

But who knows, if NGLA wants to expunge, let 'em expunge. If the next time I look in my C&W and all that's there is Charles Blair MacDonald (with no more Maxwell or RTJ) then I'll know the expunging is working very well!

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I've probably seen too many old aerials in the last few years but should I not recall that when I looked over the one up there in the pro shop from near the beginning the course had very few trees on it?

If that was so the fact that Lehigh has a number of big, mature and beautiful trees on it is of no concern whatsoever to me, particularly as I have come to understand better how Flynn felt about the use of trees in architecture! I'm not sure I could say the same about BillV's feeling on trees though.

But still as much as I don't mind trees on certain courses there are a number of trees at Lehigh that do need to come out to open up the shot angles a bit and the feeling and vistas of a few holes too. I'm thinking of some on #6 right, and maybe a bit farther down left, at least one tree (nice looking too) just off the tee right on the wonderful #10, quite a few trees in the V separating the fairways of #11 & #15, maybe one or two coming out of #12 drive left and most definitely those few scraggly trees overhanging the river and encroaching on the tee shot on the right on #13! Maybe they're gone now anyway--they were neither nice looking or healthy looking.

I've never looked at Lehigh until now in C&W but what did the Gordons do at Lehigh?

[George Bahto]

TEPaul: Tommy, I'm zipper-lipped right now!!!! ):

There has been some work done at NGLA by big name "outsiders"  (as many of you are aware) but the club does not want to have a laundry list of archie names tagged on.

As far as the Maxwell thing goes, even if he had done work there - and I'm sure he had, at the behest of the "boss of bosses" CB, I don't think it would apply because of who asked him.

I mean who knows about the input he got from Whigham and from Dev Emmet.

NGLA & Links were both fiddled with after CB lost total control at the time he got got pretty weak (ill) - about 1936 or so. From what I have uncovered, both clubs were itching to get their hands on the course and change things and do things they couldn't do when CB was in control (like water the course a lot more and at least rake a bunker floor). Rakes were not allowed and don't bring your own, either - that was a standing order when he was alive!!


       wouldn't it amazing if the greens Perry M did were greens #1 and #6 ..... I'm not sure our group could handle that!!

I've talk to both Ron Whitten and Geoffrey Cornish about where they got that inof from but neither could come up the answer.

RTJ did irrigation at National - another more recent "name" made suggestions about a landing area that was "carried out to some extent, in house"

[TEPaul]

I could actually see Maxwell doing greens #1 & #6. They're both more radical than anything I've seen before from him but both the horseshoe and the little bowl in #1 is a bit like something he did on GMGC's #8 (small green) which I originally thought was a basic flipped around copy of what Maxwell did on #7 ANGC! But then I found out the he did ours about four years before he did ANGC's. But if Maxwell did those green at NGLA he's probably been out drinking with MacDonald the night before.

But it's more likely that the things I'm talking about from Maxwell, Maxwell might have gotten from C.B and NGLA, don't you think?

[Joel_Stewart]

Isn't Pine Valley basically untouched from its original routing and design?

[TEPaul]

Joel:

Yes it is. Obviously trees have grown but they are working on that now. There has only been one significant architectural change to Crump's Pine Valley course that did not emanate from Crump or the 1921 Advisory Committee that was established to complete and finalize the course following Crump's premature death in 1918 and actually made its final recommendations in 1921! That one significant change was the additon to hole #8 of an ALTERNATE green about 25 yds to the right of the original green.

Other than that there have been no significant architectural changes to Pine Valley since the 1921 Advisory Committee's final recommedations.

[ian]

To stay untouched it usually has required financial problems to freeze the club in time. Penn Hills is the best example I've seen. Its virtually intact from the day Travis (his 9) left, its in horrible shape, but historically facinating .

Toronto Golf Club has had a cosmetic face lift, but everything is essentially in the same place with the quality of the grass dramaticly improved.

[Chris_Clouser]

Was just going to bring this back up, but I also thought of one...CRYSTAL DOWNS!!!!  They have only added two tees according to the club.

But the Maxwell discussion on NGLA is interesting.

[Keith Williams]

Holston Hills?

[Bill_McBride]

Tom Paul - if you are saying that somebody came in and built the berms to hide a road at NGLA, does that mean that maybe the same person went out to Bermuda and built the berms to hide the road on #4 Mid Ocean??!  Just wondering if maybe CB built them originally, or is it possible the same person did both?  I've not played NGLA (yet) but distinctly recall those berms at Mid-Ocean.
Bill McBride

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Franklin Hills looks to be pretty well preserved and I believe that is also true with quite a few of the heathland courses near London. One reason may be these clubs never felt changes were a good use of their money. There seems to be a 'Keeping up with the Jones's' mentality (and a love for the newest fad or fashion) in the US that leads to periodic 'improvements'.

Chris C
What are the philosophical differences between Maxwell and MacKenzie, and you said Augusta National illustrates those differences, how so?

[dick cesana]

fischers island

[TEPaul]

It would be very interesting to know what the early tree situation may have been on Fishers Island golf course pre-1938. I'd love to see some early photos of the course for that reason.

The reason being is the 1938 hurricane that hit Fishers Island was one of the most devastating anywhere apparently. In the Fishers Island history book it mentions that hurricane took every single tree on the island down in one night.

This is an example of the most comprehensively efficient tree clearing incident known to man or golf and one that Bill Vostinak is still in awe and admiration over! No green chairman, members or tree huggers to worry about, just BAM and in one night Mother Nature did her own thing!

[Jim_Kennedy]

These are not from 1938 but I had to post them. These are three great 3's.

[TEPaul]

JimK:

Those are some damn good looking little red Xs in boxes but they all look the same to me. I thought Raynor had a bit more variety in the look of his par 3s.

[Chris_Clouser]

Tom M

I think the style of Maxwell fits much better with the style of the course at Augusta as it is now.  The dramatic stylings of MacKenzies bunkers would really stick out compared to those sterile cleanly cut bunkers of today at the course.  The fairway bunker at the 10th is the lone remaining example of MacKenzies style that is left on the course.  I think someone once called the greenside bunker on 10 egregious when compared to the large Mac bunker in the fairway.  Though we may love the shape of that bunker, it doesn't fit in with the course anymore. I think MacKenzie's style favored a more hazard based design, than Maxwell's.  Maxwell, especially in his early work used few if any fairway type bunkers and limited his bunkering mostly to tight greenside bunkers around small greens whereas MacKenzie's trademark was the bold contouring of his bunkers.  The way they designed greens was probably the main characteristic they did have in common, thus Maxwell's green building still fit in very well on Mac's designs at Crystal Downs and U of M.  
Maxwell it also seems to be less willing to move dirt than Mac.  Not that Mac moved a lot of dirt on his projects, but Maxwell was perhaps really close to that Minimalist Manifesto concept that people are so hot to jump on today.  He didn't implement hazards so much as he would implement changes in the terrain to create the challenge on his holes.  The fairways on doglegs that slope away are a prime example.  
If I had to classify them, I would say Maxwell's style was simple and effective while Mac's was stylish and enchanting while also being sound strategically.

To understand how Maxwell designed his holes you almost have to start at the green and work back to the tee.  His greens were always designed to accept shots from a particular angle depending on where the pin was place.  If you try to approach the green from the wrong angle you better hit the shot of your life or bogey is the result.  I think we actually had a lot of talk about this in regards to the NZO at PB earlier this year as that course sounds very similar to many of Maxwell's works.  To get to that correct angle you would have to hit the tee shot to that position.  This was often where Maxwell would be the most magical in his work.  The terrain would work in a way that would require you to manipulate the ball correctly to get where you wanted.  I think this is where Maxwell differs from many architects.  Flynn, MacKenzie and Tillinghast in particular spring to mind in the fact that they would use hazards to try and set up a more heroic type of shot, but Maxwell would due this subtly without the hazards for the most part.  The beauty of Maxwell's courses though is that the holes weren't designed to be played with long irons or with short irons in mind when he did them.  The holes don't accept shots from the wrong angle no matter what club you hit.  That's why his courses remain in tact for the most part today as opposed to several of the other courses from that era.  The difficulty level is still there regardless of whether you are hitting a wedge into the green or not.  Courses like Oklahoma City, Twin Hills, Oakwood, Melrose and others just haven't changed much since his day because they didn't need to.  The members liked the course and it remains a real test even though they have new equipment and can drive the ball farther, they realize the answer is positioning and not distance on Maxwell courses.  I think about a line from someone at the Old Town Club when I asked if they had a course guide and his response was, "The members never wanted it, so we didn't make them.  They know where to hit it and where not to."  A pretty simple formula of challenge the tee shot to get in the right position and design a green that is receptive to shots from the right position and rejects shots from the wrong angle of approach or at the minimum make a two putt a true test.

[SPDB]

Jim - you can't post pics that merely reside on your computer. The pictures must be on the internet somewhere. There are plenty of people here who have the ability to do that for you if you email them the pics - I, unfortunately, am not one of them.

[john stiles]

Holston Hills ?  

Oh yes...  add Holston Hills to the list.  It is basically untouched, same tee areas, same green sites, same bunkers.

This is due mostly to the lack of extraneous money through the years with the only exception being donated and memorial trees.  

Doak's restoration work in 1998 was wonderful with that light touch of a knowledgeable renaissance man.

We have also been fortunate in that the pine beetle is basically unstoppable and we have had several ice storms and some freak winter lightning in the last few years.  So some of the  trees planted in the 50s/60s are being removed by pine beetles and new superintendent Ryan Blair.  Finally,  man working, side by side, with nature ....on my home course !

John Stiles