News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Poor ol' Shaughnessy
« on: July 23, 2011, 11:37:37 AM »
I just finished reading Robert Thompson's latest blog post from the Canadian Open, at Shaughnessy:
http://canadiangolfer.com/g4g/

I'd like to preface the following comments: Shaughnessy Golf and Country Club, the PGA Tour and the Royal Canadian Golf Association can, rightfully, choose to set the course up in any manner they see fit for the Canadian Open. But, here, at a discussion group devoted to golf course architecture, I think it's important to point out that Shaughnessy was originally one of the most revolutionary, thoughtful golf course designs in Canada; back when the course was originally designed, during the late 1950s.

This week, the course would be nearly unrecognizable to its original designer, Vernon Macan. In fact, I know Mr. Macan would be very diappointed (even livid, perhaps) with the US Open-style set-up of the course for the championship.

For the record, Mr. Macan's original design at Shaughnessy was loosely based on the concept behind Augusta National - plenty of short grass presenting optional routes of play to (firm) challenging greens. On television yesterday, I saw super-narrow corridors of play constricted by large trees; ultra-narrow fairways bordered by thick, 4-6 inches rough. The bunkering bares no resemblence to Mr. Macan's original design either. He, purposely, used bunkers very sparingly at Shaughnessy (a la Mackenzie-Jones at Augusta).  

Again, this isn't a critique of the club or the Tour or the RCGA as much as a "heads up" for those of you watching the Canadian Open on The Golf Channel this weekend. I'm sure some Shaughnessy members are happy that the pros aren't making too many birdies, as they did at Stanley Thompson's St. George's, during last year's Canadian Open. But, from a pure architectural point of view, one of Canada's most revolutionary - and well-documented - golf course designs, at Shaughnessy, is lost.

Perhaps a candidate for Daniel Wexler's next book on "missing links"  :)
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 11:43:36 AM by Jeff_Mingay »
jeffmingay.com

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Poor ol' Shaughnessy
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2011, 11:50:28 AM »
What are shots like into greens at Shaw? I heard them on PGATour Radio today recalling balls that were releasing 50-75 feet and I wonder if you can play the low runner into greens, or if the fronts are protected/elevated to a degree that would preclude this option. Thanks, Jeff.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Poor ol' Shaughnessy
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2011, 11:54:32 AM »
And Jeff, isn't Shaunessy scheduled to become officially NLE in the near future?

I play some at a Macan course in Portland, Columbia-Edgewater (1925).  It's wrenching to look at old photos of the original course with no trees, and then play it today with almost every fairway tightly bordered by majestic giant Sequoias (planted in the '60's) and trees of all descriptions and genus.

Here too I think Mac would be rolling over in dismay.

Bob Jenkins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Poor ol' Shaughnessy
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2011, 12:44:59 PM »

Jeff,

I spent Friday at Shaughnessy and have to concur with you and with Robert's comments as well.

Shaughnessy has a great routing and a very good mix of holes, and interesting but smallish greens. I am not sure if the greens are still Macan greens or not. I see some resemblance to his greens at other courses but others also show more movement than I would expect of Macan. You and Dale Jackson would know about that issue. Dale is a rules official for the RCGA at Shaughnessy this week and will likely have a lot to say.

Over about 6 hours, I saw situations where long approaches were made from the rough and also some situations where wedges were used to pitch out. If the player was able to go for the green, due to the relatively small size of the greens and what appeared to be even thicker greenside rough, balls would bury in the long stuff near the green. In those cases there was clearly only one type of recovery, ie. open up a wedge and swing away. Not a lot of skill involved.

It is still a good course but I wonder, when the USGA is seemingly getting away from the choking rough and narrow fairways, what thinking led to the set up at Shaughnessy. It was the same for the 2005 Open at Shaughnessy. Are the concerned that because the course is only 7,000 yards, it would be defenceless without the thick rough? If so, in my simple mind those making decisions on the set up are underestimating the course.

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Poor ol' Shaughnessy
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2011, 02:51:36 PM »
Ronald,

I would say approach play is fairly well-varied at Shaughnessy. There are still a few Macan greens that pitch toward the back of the putting surface, which is perhaps where they're talking about balls releasing 50-75 feet.

The fairway approach areas running into the greens at a number of holes are quite narrow; and, I wonder if these areas are appropriately firm relative to pitching the ball short of the green from where it would release onto the putting surface. I don't know the answer. But, this is a shot Macan often wanted golfers to learn, and play at his courses. He wrote about this a lot over his career, saying many of his fallaway greens at Shaughnessy, and elsewhere, were criticized because golfers were too stubborn to figure out that such greens were purposely designed to favour a terrestrial approach.

On this note, I think another problem is the climate and grass types common to the Pacific Northwest. It's not easy to keep the fairway approach areas firm and consistent with the greens because it's so often damp (rain and irrigating Poa). This was the case when Macan's 12th green at Victoria Golf Club - which tilted front to back - was rebuilt during the 1980s. The approach was too often damp, I hear. Land the ball short, it stops. Land it on the firmer green surface, the ball's over the back. A plethora of Poa in the fairways doesn't provide for the same reaction you'd get from a bentgrass approach, either.

Bill,

Shaughnessy is indeed scheduled to become NLE. A native band owns the property and is currently leasing it to the club. This band has made it clear that they will take the land back in about 20 years or so, I think it is. So, there will likely be at least a few more Canadian Opens played at Shaughnessy before this happens.

I agree that Mr. Macan would likely find Columbia-Edgewater - along with a majority of his original golf course designs, unfortunately - as unrecognizable as Shaughnessy these days.

Bob,

I agree, too, that Shaughnessy has a great routing and a good mix of holes. This is attributable to the framework Macan laid down there.

I can't recall specific numbers right now, but there are indeed more than a few greens at Shaughnessy that have been redesigned since Macan's days. As for their size, I wonder if there's been some notable shrinkage of the putting surfaces (specifically at the oldest Macan greens) over the years? I don't recall. My last visit was awhile ago now. But, like at Pebble Beach, for example, perhaps the greens weren't always as small as they are today at Shaughnessy? Likely.

Shaughnessy is indeed a good course. But there are so many details missing that could quite easily be restored/enhanced to once again make the place something special rather than just another tournament course with 20-yard wide fairways bordered by thick rough and ornamental plantings featuring at too many holes. Mr. Macan's work was so much more sophisticated than that. Shaughnessy could be one of Canada's most distinctive golf courses.

As you say, perhaps with the USGA (under the direction of Mike Davis) taking a more sophistcated look at courses in the US Open rota, we might follow suit up here.  
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 02:55:08 PM by Jeff_Mingay »
jeffmingay.com

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Poor ol' Shaughnessy
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2011, 04:58:34 PM »
At 4:56pm EST, we heard "designed by Vernon Mack-in" from Ian Baker-Finch. Nice  ;D

It's Ma-can. Ma-can...  ;)
jeffmingay.com

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Poor ol' Shaughnessy
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2011, 06:19:10 PM »
What do you expect from an Australian!
it would be ironic if Ogilvy won tomorrow.

Tim Pitner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Poor ol' Shaughnessy
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2011, 09:48:58 PM »
At 4:56pm EST, we heard "designed by Vernon Mack-in" from Ian Baker-Finch. Nice  ;D

It's Ma-can. Ma-can...  ;)

IBF may have mangled the pronunciation of Macan's name, but he's on board with the opinion that the fairways are too narrow at Shaugnessy this week.  He made a point about the encroaching rough taking the bunkers out of play. 

Will MacEwen

Re: Poor ol' Shaughnessy
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2011, 12:17:30 AM »
I was there today.  Walking across the fairways, they were quite firm.  Apparently they trimmed the rough last night, but not only was it long, it is juicy.  A cool, wet spring/summer up here this year.

Even without the rough, the course is quite narrow.  I'm sure many here would lobby for the chainsaw, but people in the PNW love the tall timbers.

Frank M

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Poor ol' Shaughnessy New
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2011, 01:28:42 AM »
I have not played Shaughnessy, so I cannot comment on the narrowness of the course, but I have played Capilano. While many here believe the trees are a little much by what they see in photos, Capilano provides more than enough width and I love the trees there and think they are majestic.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2024, 07:35:28 PM by Frank M »

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Poor ol' Shaughnessy New
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2011, 02:27:35 PM »
I was there today.  Walking across the fairways, they were quite firm.  Apparently they trimmed the rough last night, but not only was it long, it is juicy.  A cool, wet spring/summer up here this year.

Even without the rough, the course is quite narrow.  I'm sure many here would lobby for the chainsaw, but people in the PNW love the tall timbers.

It does look like another Sahalee a severe case of spruce tunnel hes run amok. I like the setup though, because the course would be pretty fefenseless otherwise. This IS a national championship after all.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 03:51:56 PM by Terry Lavin »
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Will MacEwen

Re: Poor ol' Shaughnessy
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2011, 02:38:43 PM »
Terry - I don't think it is crazy narrow with the trees, but pinching the fairways in seems excessive.  I suppose it actually takes some of the trees out of play because the ball doesn't run...


Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Poor ol' Shaughnessy
« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2011, 02:59:40 PM »
Personally, my issue isn't necessarily with the width as much as the mowing patterns. They seem arbitrary, and look bizarre, at many holes.

For me, it's more about the potential presentation of the course - in reflection of Mr. Macan's original design concept - than making sure the eventual winner doesn't go too low for someone else's liking. Lowest score wins no matter what it is; and, Shaughnessy could be presented as one of the most distinctive golf course designs in Canada. Instead we see a comparatively run-of-the-mill "national championship style" golf course this week.

Again, this is not to condemn those in charge at the club, the Tour, or the RCGA. This is a golf architecture discussion group, and I'm simply trying to make a point about what Shaughnessy was originally intended to be; which, from my point of view, is a pretty cool concept. Especially for a late 1950s era design.

In fact, that reminds me, late in his career, about the same time he was designing Shaughnessy, Mr. Macan strongly condemned Robert Trent Jones' redesign of Oakland Hills-South. Tell me, does Shaughnessy look more like Oakland Hills-South or Augusta National this week? (I know the answer.)
jeffmingay.com

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Poor ol' Shaughnessy
« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2011, 03:26:20 PM »
Terry - I don't think it is crazy narrow with the trees, but pinching the fairways in seems excessive.  I suppose it actually takes some of the trees out of play because the ball doesn't run...



Mine, of course, is a television observation so I'll quickly demur to those who've played it.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Poor ol' Shaughnessy
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2011, 02:26:34 PM »
"In fact, that reminds me, late in his career, about the same time he was designing Shaughnessy, Mr. Macan strongly condemned Robert Trent Jones' redesign of Oakland Hills-South. Tell me, does Shaughnessy look more like Oakland Hills-South or Augusta National this week? (I know the answer.)"

There are reasons to think that a similar fate awaits  the Shaughnessy archetype.

Bob