Saucon's Grace Course

[T_MacWood]

Mike
Interesting. I wonder if Peter M. (who wrote the 'My Home Course' on SVCC) would agree with the assessment that relatively minor revisions were made to the Old, it appears to me that significant revisions were made to the bunkering scheme.

[Robert Emmons]

I stand corrected...

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
What I'm trying to point out is that this is probably how most classic courses were altered.
In some cases an alteration was probably done to soften the golf course, in other cases the alteration was possibly viewed as improving the golf course.
Who makes that call?"

Pat:

That is the ultimate question and one we seem to discuss on here all the time without any real answer or resolution.

But I get the feeling that some on here may rationalize that no golf course should be touched simply to preserve some of the really old and originally neat courses from being touched. Although probably well intended that attitude is way too much of a "one size must fit all" mentality!

The point is that any club needs to make distinctions and intelligent ones and intelligent decisions when it comes to architecture. In a word they need to understand better what they have and what they don't have! Clubs with real classics need to recognize that and do the right thing basically restoring and preserving. Clubs that have courses that really aren't that much need to be honest and accept that too. The latter are candidates for some good enhancements many times in my opinion. An architect such as Doak is the first to be honest and admit this type of thing--this type of difference and distinction!

But a course like Saucon's Grace could, can and does need some enhancing and some "interest" thrown into it. Call that redesigning, improving, even restoring if you want to (although the latter is not true) but the fact remains it did need that.

I have no problem with that. As much as we argue and discuss this subject of touching any golf course one of these days we must come to grip with the fact that a "one size fits all mentality" in anything to do with golf architecture is not the ideal way to go!

And so the conclusion is that those at any club must make intelligent decisions about their courses. There are some of us out there who are obviously willing to help in any way possible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I believe that the distinction that you wish clubs to make, may be beyond their capabilities.

You've been around golf and golf clubs long enough to realize that the decision to alter, and what and how to alter, isn't always a well thought out process, and often tends to be dependent upon the agenda of a few individuals at a club, who typically reside as green chairmen or board members.

I haven't seen many clubs seek outside "consultants" who aren't working architects, to determine if they should alter their golf course.

In most instances, the club has a specific idea of what THEY want to do, or, they want change, but put the nature and scope of the changes in the hands of an architect, or they want to make changes to keep up with other clubs that have made changes.

Master plans would be a form of the middle idea.

This is where organizations, such as the Donald Ross Society and Tillinghast society can be of great value.

As clubs become more distant from their creators, I sense that the preservation of the design integrity diminishes.

This is another area where your idea of creating a resource section of GCA.com could become valueable.

[Matt_Ward]

I'd be curious as someone who's played his fair share of superior golf in the Keystone State -- does anyone really see The Grace Course at Saucon Valley being in the top 10 within Pennsy?

The layout is as redanman described -- flat as a pancake despite its immediate location in the Lehigh Valley. The layout by the Gordons pales against the likes of Medford Village and even such lesser known courses as Oak Hill (NJ) and Buena Vista. I'd even take Stanwich because of the green complexes there although that layout is also just a rendition of long hole followed by another long hole.

I don't doubt for a second the impressive nature of the totality of the f-a-c-i-l-i-t-y at Saucon Valley because when it was created it was likely a model for others to follow. But I also agree that there isn't really a flagship course at the facility to merit such high marks on the national scene and quite possibly Pennsy.

Sometimes courses make a listing and people just automatically keep including it when closer analysis would prove otherwise. The Grace has lived off its roots for far toooooo long IMHO.

Like others have said I'd be very interested in seeing what is being done but whatever has been done has got to be a bit more than the cut'n paste variety to merit such a standing at the state and national levels IMHO.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

When you stated:

"TEPaul,
I believe that the distinction that you wish clubs to make, may be beyond their capabilities."

And then went on to ask whatever could or will be done about it, I think you basically supplied the answers in the remainder of your own post.

Particularly this thought of yours.

"In most instances, the club has a specific idea of what THEY want to do, or, they want change, but put the nature and scope of the changes in the hands of an architect, or they want to make changes to keep up with other clubs that have made changes."

Just look at that thought of yours, most particularly the second one and recognize better what we're all seeing out there now. What we're seeing is really good restoration architects working their asses off right now restoring some of the great old courses that've been screwed up in the last 50-70 years. Why is that? Obviously the cycle has turned and this is without doubt creating somewhat of a critical mass for this kind of thing to continue exponentially--just the way the cycle of screwing those old courses up in basically the same ways increased exponentially during that cycle of the last 50-70 years.

You're right that many clubs want to do what some of the higher profile clubs are into and these days so many of the higher profile clubs are into the benefits of restoration and preservation!

Societies of old architects help, results of successful restorations help which fosters notice and communication and imitation. Even a formerly little know website is beginning to help. It's not something that will happen everywhere or in every single case but the tide has turned now, the cycle has changed and is basically cycling back the other way.

And furthermore, you know it!! The mission is to keep it going, to open that dam more and get it really flowing! And while we're all into letting and helping that restoration cycle flow we can all propose that to make those restorations really sing and play to their max that the flow of water needs to be dialed down--to the "ideal maintenance meld" for those old style designs  .

For the modern age style courses and designs of the last 50 years let them keep the water on or even dial it up--it doesn't really matter that much for that distinct style, that primarily aerial style design---frankly it may even make them play better or at least the way they were designed--strictly for the aerial game.

What we all need to do is make the necessary distinctions in styles better and explain it better and then start those maintenance practices that meld best into whatever those distinct styles are! And it's important to know that those maintenance practices may be very different. One thing for sure, the old way of looking at maintenance practices---that which was generally always referred to as "good condition" was a "one size fits all" mentality that made no distinctions in what worked best for differing styles and designs--certainly very much to the fifty plus year detriment of one well known style.

[TEPaul]

"I'd be curious as someone who's played his fair share of superior golf in the Keystone State -- does anyone really see The Grace Course at Saucon Valley being in the top 10 within Pennsy?"

Matt:

I've got to think being here in this state the time I have and playing all the tournament golf I have that I've sure seen most all the best in this state and is the Grace in the top 10. I sure wouldn't say that but who the hell really cares? In my opinion, what is apparently happening to the Grace course now is a very good thing for the Grace course and Saucon Valley.

[peter_mcknight]

Good afternoon, all...

Now that I have found the time to respond to all of the comments on SVCC's Grace Course, here goes:

Remember, the Grace was built in 2 stages--1-6, 16-18 were built in 1953; 7-15 were built in 1957 and the course opened in 1958.  The road behind the 6th green and 16th tee separated two distinct properties in the early 1950s--Grace and others had to buy the land for holes 7-15 and the best halfway house in golf, the Villa Pazetti.

Hole no.1 is only 585 and has no room to move back any further.  I don't believe this hole could be reachable by mere mortals, but some of the top touring guys could under some reasonably dry conditions.  I would have to say it would be quite a 2d shot with a long iron left to right to reach the green.  Reaching no.10 would be far tougher, even though it is 50 yards shorter.  Adding bunkers to strengthen the tee shot may be good on no.1, I don't know because I haven't seen it.  For a tournament set-up, I would probably prefer not having them because rough would be more difficult for a 2d shot.

Hole no.10 is a fairly decent hole--I certainly hope the trees along Saucon Creek don't come down, because that would take away some of the strategic interest in the hole.  Most of no.10 is in the tee shot--if one fails to put it into the fairway, it increases the number of options for the 2d shot over Saucon Creek to set up the 3d shot.  I have always believed this was the toughest tee shot on the Grace and should always remain as such.

No.11 is the best par 3 on the Grace Course, bar none--if necessary, there is still room to move the tee back 20-40 yards.  This hole in no way resembles National 4--it might have characteristics of a redan, but shouldn't be confused as one.  Besides of which, the green isn't all that severe as a redan should be.

One really can't combine the Old and Grace courses to come up with a composite course for a tournament.  Flow of a combination course would be difficult, as well as gallery traffic flow.  Besides, you could never use Grace 18 because there is simply NO room for spectator stands.

Hole no.3--the pond is on the right, not the left.  Saucon Creek is on the left and is in play if a shot is off line by 15-20 yards.  I am curious to know what trees were removed on that hole--I don't remember trees actually being anywhere on that hole.  That hole was 232 yards of pure pain.

Hole no.4--this would be a great par 4 from a few paces inside the middle tee.  As a par 5 it is weak today (I'm sure it was different in Grace's days--the bunker in the fairway on the right affecting the tee shot was in play then, but probably isn't today).  That bunker affecting the drive should probably be eliminated anyway because it aids a player visually on the tee shot when the player should look into that great expanse deep past the fairway and parallel to the old pike and have to deal with the visual problem.

Hole no.6--Part of this hole was copied from Old no.6 and can't really be classified as a sahara hole.  Moving the existing tee back to at least 425 from its current 390 would a good starting point.  I also believe the green is too large given the nature of the 2d shot and should be reduced and increase some contour into the green.

Hole no.7--Length would be great here to make sure the left, massive bunker is actually in play.

Hole no.8--where to start?  This hole could be interesting.  Tee shot needs to be more of a challenge--perhaps ensuring the weeping willows are more in play.  The green is way too flat for a 8 iron to wedge approach.  I never understood why no.7 had more contour than no.8.  Maybe it could be pushed further up the hillside??

Hole no.12--The largest problem hole on the Grace Course.  It is on one of the two low points on the course (the other being hole no.2) and that large stand of trees to the right of the green site (and the trees near the 13th tee and the lower fairway of the 10th) effectively block out the sun on that part of the course.  As far as I know, the green had to be rebuilt 2x in 7 years while I caddied there.  The 2d rebuild was too flat, from what I remember.  If one's 2d shot will only be from 100-120 yards, the green should have some fairly severe contours.  The hole really only works because you have to hit it to the extreme left of the fairway to actually see the green.

Hole no.15--I have to agree that this isn't a bad par 5, but as I stated in my home course write-up, its position on the back nine is unfortunate because one will have hit a wedge into nos.10,12,13 before the 3d shot into 15.  I believe the hole would be a great par 4 at around 490 now and would be a near-great stretch of closing holes.

Hole no.17--This isn't the original green or green complex.  The old green and green complex allowed for a bump and run approach that would funnel straight into the green and the green was like a punchbowl.  The new green constructed in the late 1980s elevated the green about 3-6 above the fairway and added deeper bunkers around the green.  Those bunkers were the only ones on the course that were only sand on the bottoms of the bunkers and left the rest with long rough grasses.  There can be no doubt about this--the redesign of the 17th green and green complex added significant difficulty to the 2d shot that wasn't present before.

A maxed out Grace Course could play like this from a yardage point of view:
585/415/235/495/165/425/465/425/465--3675
550/220/345/360/175/490/450/455/445--3490 (7165)

As to the Old Course, it's hard to say there were only minor modifications made to the course--it sort-of depends on what one thinks are minor modifications.  For the most part, the greens haven't been touched.  However, the current 1st green isn't an original because Grace had it placed back 40 yards for the 51st amateur.  The bunkering on nos.13 and 18 were Grace additions.  For example, no.18 was bunkerless and was to resemble TOC 18, but Grace didn't like that after a few years.  I'm also sure some of the greens lost square footage over the years as well--I have a paper from a course guide in the 1960s that stated the square footage of the greens and I would really like to know if the greens are actually the same size today.  I know no.8 shrunk over time because of over thousands of sand shots and mowing patterns.

Is the Grace Course good, great, other?  I don't think it's great, but it is fairly solid.  Aronimink, for example, is much better from a design standpoint.  However, there are things that can be done to improve the design.  Clearly, the greens at Weyhill and Stanwich are much better than the Grace.  Perhaps the Gordons learned more after designing the Grace.  The Grace had the worst of the land for a course of all 3 SVCC courses, both from topography and drainage.

I still contend it was the best place in the States to grow up learning the game.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom P:

As much as you loathe or protest against ratings the nature of man is to compare and contrast things -- golf courses being one of those aspects of life that generally enlivens 19th hole discussions. Tom -- people do care about such things -- and instead of tap dancing around the issue I'd like to see what you think represents the best in Pennsy golf. Heck, I know you would probably have plenty of insights on how the courses stack up given your wealth of experiences at so many of them. I know I have played a very good proportion of the courses in the state and I can't see for the life of me how the Grace Course remotely makes the top ten -- never mind the 100 best in America. The land is just vanilla and the holes are simply a focus on pro forma bunkering and lackluster green shapes and contours.

My point was a simple one -- Pennsy has a good number of superb layouts. Does the Grace Course merit such a lofty position? My answer is a simple one -- no. Yes, it's fine course but when you speak about Keystone State golf you have a very competitive stack of courses from a number of outstanding architects.

Clearly, someone is voting for the Grace to maintain it's position. I'd like someone to explain to me why they thing the course deserves such a high rating -- both in Pennsy and in the USA. You see being from Juuuuuursee and obviously being in left field for much of my life I'd like to know from those who see it differently.

Tom -- one last thing -- that's great what the course is doing but again you tap danced what I mentioned -- how does the course stack up against other courses in Pennsy. Come on Tom -- how bout going out on a limb? In my mind -- the best course at Saucon Valley happens to be the Old Course and I still would not include that among the state's ten best -- and certainly not among the 100 best in the USA.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Interesting post and some really good thoughts. However, on the par 5s I don't believe I'd agree with what you say, particularly #10 and #4. The drive on #10 maybe tough--it obviously is but it's also pretty one-dimensionally tough with all those trees right and left. For strong players I'd think about all they could reasonably be expected to do would be to hit as long a fade as they could! But if the trees weren't there there's a whole variety of tee shot shapes and choices one could make, particularly knowing you couldn't really favor the left side much without being semi blocked on the second as the hole turns so much on the last third! From the tips to run out of room where the creek crosses the fairway would be an effective tee shot of well over 300 yds--not something to be too concerned about. From somewhere behind that 190 marker which is in the rough straight through the end of the fairway a "go/no go" option to a green angled and protected like that one is with the creek running near it left would be an excellent set up. And if a "go" was not the choice the new bunkering about 100 yards out is enough to think about for an optional lay-up--carry the ball over them right in front of the well angled and shaped green or else go right of those bunkers with a different shot in.

On #4 I don't see a green and a green orientation and bunkering like that one being a good type for a long par 4. A green like that is better for a higher risk go in two or a third shot. Even with a wedge in that green and set-up is pretty interesting, particularly the back of it. And the bunker left and green orientation make that a good par 5 set-up in my opinion. If anyone wanted more length on #4 it looks like it there although just extending even more a pretty long walk back around the pond from #3 green.

[TEPaul]

Also, not that it really matters but holes #10-#14 are about as different in style and feel from the rest of the course as imaginable. So what, I guess, just try to chalk that up to "variety"!

I just think that it's somewhat possible to make the Grace course a whole lot more interesting on those flatter land holes with some creative bunkering establishing more interesting angles and shot options.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

I appreciate what you say about ratings and rankings and how many people may think that's important. I have no doubt that may be so but honestly I have zero interest in comparing courses against Grace or each other whether in Pa or the US. What I prefer to do is just look at any golf course and its holes to determine what's good about it, what's really good about it, what's mundane or bad, really bad and how anything could possibly be improved, restored, made better, whatever.

A course like Grace does have those flatland non-topographical holes but so do plenty of other golf courses with some excellent architecture. The interest to me is in imagining how some of those holes could be made better and more interesting. That's what I enjoy about studying architecture and rankings just don't do that for me---sorry.  

[peter_mcknight]

Tom Paul...

Actually, now that I think about it, the trees along Saucon Creek on no.10 are good because, if you haven't played there before, nor paid attention on no.9, the trees occlude the exact position of the creek from the tee, which isn't all bad from a design point of view.  I never knew that many of the better players at SVCC who ever pulled D out of the bag on no.10 because it was much better to be in the fairway than either thick rough, trees or creek.  As I wrote in my home course write-up, the hole even from the 535 back tee is a 3w, 7i, w.

No.4 would be a great par 4 in my view.  If anything, it won't be as difficult as say, Bethpage 15 from a green complex point of view.  If the par 5 tee were moved back 30-40 yards, it would be a better par 5, but not good to great.  Again, as a par 4, the view from the tee wouldn't be to look at the bunker on the right near the old pike; rather, one would look further out into the expanse and further down the fairway, which I contend would make the tee shot probably more difficult.  If the stand of trees at the corner of the dog-leg on no.7 were removed, that tee shot value would rise significantly because those trees help the player direct his tee shot and the view then would resemble that of no.4.

Clearly, some tree removal would do the Grace Course some good, just like Oakmont.  Some good places to start are on no.4 at the current corner of the dog leg, no.7 as mentioned, everything in back of no.9 back tee, some around nos.11-13 to let more sun in, etc.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom P:

I hear what you say but I take a slightly different take. I don't doubt one can do what you mentioned and that is to hone in on the attributes of a given course and simply look at it to the exclusion of everything else. I believe the nature of golf -- like so many things in life -- evolves around the broader discussion on how things stack up -- i.e. compare / contrast. Serious analysis will likely unearth if a given layout is really as solid as some people might claim. The primary way to do that is to first assess the course in and of itself AND then go one extra step and see how that quality (or lack thereof) holds up against others of such note.

Golf is blessed with an array of venues -- unlike any other sport. It's with that in mind that comparisons and contrasts will be inevitable. I aso believe that is one of the reasons why such exceptional golf took hold in the Northeast portion of the USA. One superior course led other designers of that time to make sure their design would have as much, if not more so, than the one that came before it. Given the depth of quality layouts in the immediate Phillie area alone -- I am flabbergasted that the Grace Course is thought of so highly as to retain it's prominent position as a course of national acclaim.

I do hope Ron Forse is able to assist the club but for the things to happen one must deal with a topography that is clearly lacking in quality and a bunker / green design that is woefully short when compared to the gems that Flynn, Tillinghast, Ross, etc, etc, created so nearby, but still get so little fanfare.

I respect your desire to refrain from such compare and contrast discussions, however, I also know that your comments would be a fascinating inclusion because of the layouts you have played / seen in Pennsy -- to name just one state.

[T_MacWood]

Peter M
When were the changes made to the 18th?

I was under the impression the course under went significant changes some time prior to the US Am in the early 50's. Is there good documentation of the original Strong design and the subsequent changes that were made and the reasons for those changes?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Are you sure that you're not confusing The Old Course (1922)with the Grace Course (1953) ?

The USAM was held on The Old Course in 1951, Mr Grace's pride an joy at the time.  A course that was manicured beyond belief, even by modern day standards.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
All my questions have been about the Old course...Peter said the Old's 18th was altered at some point. From what I've seen of Strong's original design it was very bold and appears to me they toned it down quite a bit, I was curious who did what to the course and why.

[TEPaul]

According to C&W Perry Maxwell did some remodeling on Saucon's Old Course in 1947, William Gordon did some in 1951, and William and David Gordon did some in 1956.

[TEPaul]

PeterM:

Please don't think I'm trying to argue with you but it's a good thing to be able to debate and discuss the merits of a golf hole. I wish there was more of that on here.

Regarding what you said about Saucon Grace's #10;

"Tom Paul...
Actually, now that I think about it, the trees along Saucon Creek on no.10 are good because, if you haven't played there before, nor paid attention on no.9, the trees occlude the exact position of the creek from the tee, which isn't all bad from a design point of view.  I never knew that many of the better players at SVCC who ever pulled D out of the bag on no.10 because it was much better to be in the fairway than either thick rough, trees or creek.  As I wrote in my home course write-up, the hole even from the 535 back tee is a 3w, 7i, w."

Peter:

When you say the trees on the right occlude the exact positon of the creek from view which isn't all bad from a design point of view, I'd surely have to disagree with that on principle. I didn't actually walk into the trees to the right of #10 fairway to look at the position of the creek but it's obvious the creek parallels the first half of #10 fairway setting up a really ideal diagonal line (diagonal lines of play are almost always ideal in architecture!). It's definitely my belief that almost any architect and certainly a good one would opt to use that creek as an architectural and strategic feature instead of trees to create and enhance strategy. This is basically not much more than the common architectural adage to trying to maximize "natural features" in golf design. Certainly the use of a creek, and one as beautiful as Saucon Creek is far preferable to the use of a restricting line of trees which basically hides Saucon Creek--or 'occludes' it as you say. In principle that's just not good design practice to hide something that desirable, natural and useful.

That's the first point. The second point has to do with an analysis of how the hole plays with that treeline hiding or occluding Saucon Creek and how it would play with the creek exposed to view and to play (removing the trees on the fairway side of Saucon Creek).
 
You've said you never knew many of the better players at Grace who used a driver on #10. Well, no wonder! The way that tee shot is now with a diagonal tree-line on the right restricting a tee shot to that fairway what would the point be? And you go on to say that apparently most of the better players play that hole 3w, 7i, w!

One can hardly deny that basically forcing any good player to play that hole continuously with 3w, 7i, w, is incredibly one dimensional. The whole idea of maximizing good features (natural features such as ideally oriented creeks) on any golf hole is hopefully have the result be to create as many options and choices of play and shot types as possible.

Not only opening up the right side of #10 by removing those trees but also opening up the left side down by the green of trees would bring that arm of the creek that basically hooks right almost covering the area just to the left of that green into play. It's far better to have a golfer try a high risk shot over that arm of the creek right at the green than to force him not choose to try that because a big willow tree hangs over that entire (valuable to strategy) arm of the creek.

However, lest you think I'm advocating tree removal thoughtlessly simply because I don't like trees--nothing of the kind. I actually think the tree line on the left of the fairway on the tee shot is not only necessary but ideal! Why? Because any golfer will quickly see that that treeline (with its interesting diagonal off the tee shot on the other side) very much needs to not only be avoided but also needs to be steered well wide of if a golfer wants to take his second shot left along the very left turn of the second half of the hole! For this reason I not only think the left tree line is ideal but that the trees at the end of that line farthest down the fairway on the left (near to where Saucon Creek crosses the hole) are and would be incredibly strategic. What those trees at the end of the line would accomplish would be to force golfer's off the tee to take a very aggressive line down the right side of that fairway on the tee shot and try to hit it long dealing both with the end of the fairway but also with--you guessed it--the creek on the right!! None of this would be quite so necessary IF the hole did not turn LEFT as it does in its second halve!!

I hope you see what I'm driving at with all this. Having those trees on the right as they are on this hole seems to be almost as severe "shot dictation" as one could get. One dimensional "shot dictation" in golf architecture is generally not the way to go---opening up any area to potentially interesting and varied shots which necessarily include both success and failure is the better way to go or the best way to go---architecturally and playability-wise!

Some would at first say this might make the hole too easy. But would it? It seems apparent that the net effect would be to simply create far more options for both success and failure. There would undoubtedly be more birdies and eagles with very good high risk shots and strategies but there would also be more "others"! Why? Simply because players would be free to choose more types of strategies and more tempting high risk shots on both ends of that hole and inevitably make more errors along with their successes. Basically the hole would become more interesting, more varied--more fun!

This type of thing would unquestionably create a wider scoring spectrum on this hole which is sometimes considered a good barometer of a hole's quality and something that is desirable! Certainly it would be more desirable than basically forcing better players to continuously play the hole with 3w,7i,w which most anyone might say would get a little old after a while!

[T_MacWood]

TE
There are Maxwell drawings of the Old course in Geoff S.'s book from 1951.  I suspect the changes to the Old course make for an interesting tale.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Which GeoffShac book?

You know it occurs to me I played the Old Course at Saucon once maybe about 12 years ago but I can't remember it now.

However, when it comes to Perry Maxwell, I've got to say I can really remember a Maxwell redesigned hole or particularly green that I didn't like or even that wasn't universally popular with a membership and such.

Basically, Perry Maxwell was just pretty darn awesome, most notably his greens. They can be so varied, so unique to certain courses and sites although it does appear that he did get into a form of his own "template" type hole now and again--even though it appears he concsiously tried to hide that fact in subtle ways.

I believe if one were to make a real detailed study of the green redesigns Maxwell did at notable courses in his "Maxwell Rolls" redesign phase they'd be amazed. Maybe Chris Clouser intends to do just that in his book on Perry Maxwell. Basically the only course I've ever seen with Maxwell greens that didn't basically blow me away is Melrose--but that course has been enough changed and rerouted that perhaps it isn't clear anymore what was what.

There are just so many really wonderful greens at courses by other architects that Maxwell did that really shine certainly not the least of which are PVGC's left #8 and left #9--both just awesome greens and in no way similar at all. Left #9 is truly a class-room in what a fantastic green can be in every way!

I left my shoes at Saucon the other day so I have to go back. I also ran into a friend of mine there who said he's been the greenchairman at Saucon for perhaps 25 years now so maybe I can hook up with him and find out some of what happened at the Old Course at Saucon.

Cornish and Whitten list Maxwell as doing work at the Old Course in 1947 but as always they never list the extent or details of what any architect did.

If Saucon's Old Course is anything like my course, though, whatever Maxwell may have done should be carefully documented with an eye to continued preservation or restoration. At my course I believe the redesign work of Maxwell is better than most anything Ross did there although naturally quite different.

I'd hope that courses restoring back to any original architect  that have Maxwell redesigns would be very careful to not make the mistake of removing Maxwell work in some attempt to restore to the original architect. Thank God we didn't do that but it may have just been lucky that before going into our restoration we were able to completely break-out everything Maxwell did.

I guess I shouldn't say everything Maxwell did was perfect because basically on our 7th hole I figure in various ways he did basically make some mistakes and his green didn't really last more than about 10-15 years before being redesigned into mundaneness by another architect.

But now we've just redesigned that green again sort of in the spirit of Maxwell and so far the membership's reaction is very interesting. Many absolutely love it now and others think perhaps it's a bit too intense. To be honest, in retrospect, that kind of reaction is probably ideal!

[T_MacWood]

TE
Those drawings are in the 'Golden Age...' There doesn't seem to be much documentation of Strong's original design...anything you can find I'd be fascinated in seeing.

I agree with you generally about looking at Maxwell's changes--especially his greens--although I think you might get an arguement from about half architectural aficianado's on this site, as to the comparative merits of his 10th and 7th at ANGC.