I was struck by Bill Brightly's description in his Road Hole thread about what Gordon REMOVED from the original Banks design at Hackensack.
Gordon may not be my favorite architect of all time, but he did a very good job with the new Meadowbrook, IMO. Also, the new Deepdale is quite good considering the difficult piece of property he was given - especially on the front nine.
If memory serves, he also did Stanwich, which has always been a fine layout and, now that the greens are puttable (except for #9), is a worthy challenge for any championship. I suspect his mandate from the founding members was to build the hardest golf course for miles around (think "harder than Winged Foot"), so I forgive him for the original green contours. Half of them were impossible to putt from the start when the Stimp was probably around 8+.
The point of this is that he, basically, "ruined"?? Hackensack in 1960 by "de-Banksing" everything that he could.
Why? Pride? The need to differentiate himself? His belief that Macdonald/Raynor/Banks was old fashioned? He preferred the aerial game?
It was 1960, after all and green was "in" while "firm and fast" was a relic. Also, clubs were planting trees in those days instead of recognizing the need for light and air circulation.
Perhaps the commercial reality was that clubs wanted a Meadowbrook or a Stanwich and almost nobody appreciated NGLA, Shinnecock, Piping Rock, The Creek, Garden City, etc.
Any thoughts?