RTJ Era

[Bret Lawrence]

I can’t remember who told me that story, but this past summer I was lucky enough to experience your consulting work at Chicago Golf Club.  After the round, I was given a tour of the clubhouse and wonderful historical display that the Club recently put together.  I wanted to verify the story I had heard with the historian, so I asked him about it. He told me the story I had heard may only be partially true as there may have been others influencing Cornish’s final decision, but no one seems to know for sure.

[Ben Hollerbach]

For context in this discussion, below are the Top 50 golf courses build between 1945-1979 as rated by Golf Week.



Note, these are as rated today and I attempted to remove any courses from this list who have been redesigned, or significantly altered from their original work (i.e. Congressional and Doral (Blue)), but there may be others that could qualify for removal as well.

Within this list, 18 architects are recognized: Charles Lawrie, David Gordon, Dick Wilson, Eddie Hackett, Ellis Maples, Fred Hawtree, George Fazio, Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus, Joe Finger, Pete Dye, Ralph Plummer, Red Lawrence, Robert Trent Jones, Ted Robinson, Willard Byrd, William F. Bell, William Gordon, & David Gordon.

Regardless of current geographic proximity to you, If these were the only 50 golf courses in the world would you be unsatisfied playing them. In other words, would you become so bored with the game that you'd give it up, or would this list keep you captivated enough to dedicate yourself to the game the same way you are today?

[Ira Fishman]

Ben,


I definitely would not give up the game.


Thanks for doing the work to put the list together.


I have only played a few on the list. One of the reasons I started the thread was to see if architects during the RTJ were doing interesting work that varied from the RTJ “school” of design. I am curious what those of you have played them think.


Ira


PS Golden Horseshoe is one I have played more than once. It is very enjoyable and does not seem characteristic of the RTJ philosophy.

[Ben Hollerbach]

PS Golden Horseshoe is one I have played more than once. It is very enjoyable and does not seem characteristic of the RTJ philosophy.

Interestingly you bring up Golden Horseshoe. That was one of the first courses I looked for. I really like Golden Horseshoe and would be happy to play it every day, but it is not a design that is often mentioned among RTJ's best work. So finding it in the middle of this list helps to affirm the quality level of courses that rank higher.

With a Golfweek rating of 6.68, it would be considered of near quality to some classic courses such as Pine Needles, Orchard Lake, Lookout Mountain, Olympia Fields (South), Linville, Manufacturers, and Charles River.

[ward peyronnin]

I only know of Jack Kidwell from playing what most consider his finest design, Hickory Hills , near Columbus.
The course is a remarkably it's fun, creative, solidly routed challenge. All the features are excellent. I believe that that the main Ohio Golf Association named him the most influential person in the first 100 years of Ohio golf against some rather stiff competition. The Ohio Supt Association bestows the Jack Kidwekk Award annually.

I strongly agree with Ian. When one examines building architecture of that era the domination of straight low lines, flat roofs, repetitive elements such as windowa spoke to the economy and speed needed to satisfy the pent of demand of a lond depression and war.
From the ASGCA profile:

"Jack’s golf course designs are virtually unchanged since his first one in 1957 until his last in the late 1990s, simply because they were so fundamentally sound, fun to play, easy to maintain, and profitable. Because he worked with low budgets his courses are not flashy or famous, they are just timeless. One of his most memorable statements was, “I am happy to help people get into the golf business who have no money or experience because if those were a perquisite, I would never have enjoyed the life that golf has given me.”"

So in their way practitioners such as Mr. Kidwell left a different kind of lasting legacy but I do recomment a play of the marvelous Hickory Hills

[Jeff Schley]

Thanks Ben. 

Crooked Stick is in Indiana, not Illinois.Rees Jones killed Cog Hill
Pretty weak list in terms of depth, Peachtree stands out.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Thanks Ben. 

Crooked Stick is in Indiana, not Illinois.Rees Jones killed Cog Hill
Pretty weak list in terms of depth, Peachtree stands out.

Here was my question on Cog Hill, It does not appear that any of the teeing locations, green locations, or playing corridors were moved during Jones's renovation. Many of the bunker locations look to have been preserved, with minimal changes made to hazards within the course. So it would appear Wilson's original routing is still there. But the sentiment that Jones destroyed the course is commonplace. Having not been on property I'm having a hard time seeing what changes were made to the course that would lead someone to negate the original routing and remove the original credit to the design in favor of the new designers work, regardless if the work was good or bad.

[Ira Fishman]

Ben,


I played Cog every Saturday during summer breaks for at least seven years. The routing is intact (although there was a good change in the late 70s). I have not played it since the Rees Jones work, but just from Google Earth you can tell that the greens and bunkers have been altered significantly and not in a good way.


Joe Jemsek deserves to be in the HOF. It is really too bad that his dream to attract the US Open did not come to pass.


Ira

[Tim Rooney]

It’s interesting Mr.Cornish who created very playable but understated courses was revered as a ‘Saint’ of a Man,since this is the Quality I’ve always revered to
Jack Kidwell!Jack would comment he was so happy to provide a golf course the average man could afford to play the game of golf.He stated he didn’t have the budget to add additional creative effects to Hickory Hills.I use to visit him in the nursing home due to his escalating
Parkinson’s disease.He would comment about the horse race RTJ & Dick Wilson had building golf courses and the mesmerizing creativity of Pete Dye.
What a Fine Man Jack Kidwell was and an honor to have known the Man!

[JJShanley]

I had forgotten how highly regarded the University of New Mexico course was after it opened, although I thought about it as I read this thread in recent days. It's the one Red Lawrence course that I have played, the day of a US Amateur qualifier in 2014; I was in town for a wedding and managed to convince the starters that they could let me out at 6am on a Monday morning with a cart and that I wouldn't get in the way of the field. (I can say that I shot 85+ at a US Amateur qualifier skipping the second round without repercussion.)

I enjoyed the course, and when I look over the google map of courses I've played, I feel a sadness that I probably won't get back. In fact, when I first played Rolling Green, 16 months later, I thought that I saw something in common in terms of aesthetics. Which might makes sense based on what I know now of Lawrence's early career. One difference between Rolling Green and UNM is that while they're both hilly, UNM is, if memory serves, built into the side of a hill. I imagine that it took some engineering to produce a viable golf course. Although I don't recall the sense of the holes being benched into the slope. Perhaps it's more like Huntingdon Valley.

Google earth suggests that the clubhouse/1st tee/10th tee/9th green/green area sits about 200+ feet above holes 12-14. To what extent was UNM novel in 1966? You had engineered golf courses during the golden age, but I don't know if Macdonald or Raynor had a site as extreme as UNM. I suppose Lawrence does sit in RTJ's shadow at Wigwam, given that the Gold course (which I have played) seems to take precedence over the Red's Red course (which I haven't played.)

[Ira Fishman]

PS Golden Horseshoe is one I have played more than once. It is very enjoyable and does not seem characteristic of the RTJ philosophy.

Interestingly you bring up Golden Horseshoe. That was one of the first courses I looked for. I really like Golden Horseshoe and would be happy to play it every day, but it is not a design that is often mentioned among RTJ's best work. So finding it in the middle of this list helps to affirm the quality level of courses that rank higher.

With a Golfweek rating of 6.68, it would be considered of near quality to some classic courses such as Pine Needles, Orchard Lake, Lookout Mountain, Olympia Fields (South), Linville, Manufacturers, and Charles River.

Ben,


I don’t think that you can do a crosswalk between the Classic and Modern lists because there is more competition in the Classic list. That fact may reinforce the relative weakness of the RTJ era. I could play Golden Horseshoe regularly, but Pine Needles is the superior course by a fair margin.


Ira

[Ben Hollerbach]

PS Golden Horseshoe is one I have played more than once. It is very enjoyable and does not seem characteristic of the RTJ philosophy.

Interestingly you bring up Golden Horseshoe. That was one of the first courses I looked for. I really like Golden Horseshoe and would be happy to play it every day, but it is not a design that is often mentioned among RTJ's best work. So finding it in the middle of this list helps to affirm the quality level of courses that rank higher.

With a Golfweek rating of 6.68, it would be considered of near quality to some classic courses such as Pine Needles, Orchard Lake, Lookout Mountain, Olympia Fields (South), Linville, Manufacturers, and Charles River.

Ben,


I don’t think that you can do a crosswalk between the Classic and Modern lists because there is more competition in the Classic list. That fact may reinforce the relative weakness of the RTJ era. I could play Golden Horseshoe regularly, but Pine Needles is the superior course by a fair margin.


Ira

Ira,
I do not care what the ranking for each course is on their respective lists (rank 1-200). My focus has been on their rating. Golfweek develops a rating for each course they evaluated and then orders those ratings from highest to lowest to form their rankings list.

In the case of Golden Horseshoe, it has a rating of 6.68, while Pine Needles has a rating of 6.71.

Golfweek raters evaluate courses and rate them based on 10 criteria on a points basis of 1 through 10. Beyond criteria 2, none of the other 9 implies an evaluation difference between course age.
Theoretically, by using these criteria, the rating of a course should be relatively agnostic to age or design era. So comparing the quality of Golden Horseshoe as it stands today to Pine Needles as it stands today should be easy through their rating system.

You're reaction that Pine Needles is far superior to Golden Horseshoe is completely understandable, and a sentiment that would be shared by many. but Clearly the Golfweek rating panel and their rating system does not agree with that perspective. When looking through the ratings for both modern and classic courses, there are quite a few course comparison that would illicit similar reactions. The existence of these contradictions in appearances are quite interesting and should be a reason for pause and reflection as to how the rating system can come up with similar conclusions for what would appear to be significantly different courses.

For reference, below are the 10 criteria used by Golfweek raters to rate golf courses:

1. Ease and intimacy of routing: The extent to which the sequence of holes follows natural contours and unfolds in an unforced manner.

2A. Integrity of original design (Classic):The extent to which subsequent changes are compatible with the original design and enhance the course rather than undermine or weaken it.

2B. Quality of feature shaping (Modern): The extent to which the land’s features have been enhanced though earthmoving and shaping to form a landscape that suits the game and has aesthetic/thematic coherence.

3. Natural setting and overall land plan: Quality and aesthetic relationship of golf course, clubhouse, cart paths and other facility features to surrounding structures and native scenery.

4. Interest of greens and surrounding contours: Shotmaking demands on and around the putting surfaces.

5. Variety and memorability of par 3s: Different clubs hit; different terrain; different looks.

6. Variety and memorability of par 4s: The extent to which the angles of play, varied terrain and left-to-right/right-to-left shots create interesting and varied playing options.

7. Variety and memorability of par 5s: The extent to which holes offer a variety of options from the tee and on the second shot as well as risk/reward possibilities.

8. Basic quality of conditioning: Variety of playing textures; extent of turf coverage; consistency and quality of bunker sand; delineation of tees/fairways/roughs/collars and chipping areas (beyond day-to-day changes because of weather, aerification, overseeding or repairs).

9. Landscape and tree management: The extent to which trees and any floral features complement or enhance rather than impose and intrude upon the ground features, and the playing options of the course.

10. “Walk in the park” test: The degree to which the course ultimately is worth spending a half-day on as a compelling outdoor experience.

[Ira Fishman]

Ben,


I am not a rater of any kind (keep waiting for Ran to invite me), but I think the GW raters know that they are comparing Modern v Modern and Classic v Classic. There just are more Classic courses that are competitive.


Ira

[Ben Hollerbach]

Ben,


I am not a rater of any kind (keep waiting for Ran to invite me), but I think the GW raters know that they are comparing Modern v Modern and Classic v Classic. There just are more Classic courses that are competitive.


Ira

Are you suggesting that a when a rater steps foot on a 1960's era golf course they critique the course more favorable than they would a 1920's era course?

The competition has nothing to do with the criteria Golfweek uses to generate a courses rating.

[Daryl David]

Ben,


I am not a rater of any kind (keep waiting for Ran to invite me), but I think the GW raters know that they are comparing Modern v Modern and Classic v Classic. There just are more Classic courses that are competitive.


Ira

Are you suggesting that a when a rater steps foot on a 1960's era golf course they critique the course more favorable than they would a 1920's era course?

The competition has nothing to do with the criteria Golfweek uses to generate a courses rating.

Maybe this will shed some light. The following comes from the Golfweek rater handbook:



Votes for the top Classic courses tend to be higher than votes for the top Modern courses. Thereafter it reverses, with the mid-tier Modern courses ranking higher than their Classic counterparts. This suggests that while the elite Classic courses are better than the elite Modern courses, the quality of Classic courses falls off quickly and that there is a strong body of very good (if not great) intermediate-level Modern courses.


Consider as follows:
No. 1 Classic: Pine Valley, NJ (9.60)
No. 10 Classic: Chicago GC, IL (8.72)
No. 50 Classic: Essex County Club, MA (7.42)
No. 100 Classic: Monroe GC, NY (6.95)

No. 1 Modern: Sand Hills, NE(9.19)
No. 10 Modern: Wade Hampton Club, NC (8.02 No. 50 Modern: Olde Farm, VA (7.32)
No. 100 Modern: Stonewall – Original, PA (6.97)

[Edward Glidewell]

I played RTJ's Dunes Club for the first time a couple of years ago and thought it was excellent. I could happily play most of my golf there.


Since it's in the bottom half of the posted rankings, I don't think I'd have any trouble loving golf if those were the only courses I could play.

[Ira Fishman]

Ben,


I am not a rater of any kind (keep waiting for Ran to invite me), but I think the GW raters know that they are comparing Modern v Modern and Classic v Classic. There just are more Classic courses that are competitive.


Ira

Are you suggesting that a when a rater steps foot on a 1960's era golf course they critique the course more favorable than they would a 1920's era course?

The competition has nothing to do with the criteria Golfweek uses to generate a courses rating.

Maybe this will shed some light. The following comes from the Golfweek rater handbook:



Votes for the top Classic courses tend to be higher than votes for the top Modern courses. Thereafter it reverses, with the mid-tier Modern courses ranking higher than their Classic counterparts. This suggests that while the elite Classic courses are better than the elite Modern courses, the quality of Classic courses falls off quickly and that there is a strong body of very good (if not great) intermediate-level Modern courses.


Consider as follows:
No. 1 Classic: Pine Valley, NJ (9.60)
No. 10 Classic: Chicago GC, IL (8.72)
No. 50 Classic: Essex County Club, MA (7.42)
No. 100 Classic: Monroe GC, NY (6.95)

No. 1 Modern: Sand Hills, NE(9.19)
No. 10 Modern: Wade Hampton Club, NC (8.02 No. 50 Modern: Olde Farm, VA (7.32)
No. 100 Modern: Stonewall – Original, PA (6.97)

If both of you are raters, I demur. If not, my question remains whether GW tells raters that they are rating in two different categories. I have no idea; I am not a rater.


Ira

[Mike_Young]

Been watching this thread for a few days.  My take on this entire business may be different than most here.  Not sure there was an RTJ era but he created more hype than others.

As I have mentioned before, I will always consider GCA a craft and not a profession but RTJ wanted it to be a profession and he wanted as much control as he could get on such a profession, IMHO.  Dick Wilson wasn't that concerned with it but he was RTJ's main competition and IMHO he was really in his head. 

[Charlie Goerges]

If both of you are raters, I demur. If not, my question remains whether GW tells raters that they are rating in two different categories. I have no idea; I am not a rater.


Ira

I’m not a rater, but years ago I was told that the two categories’ scores do not correlate, i.e. you can’t intermix the lists using their numeric scores.

[Daryl David]

I’m not a rater, but years ago I was told that the two categories’ scores do not correlate, i.e. you can’t intermix the lists using their numeric scores.

True

[Ben Hollerbach]

I’m not a rater, but years ago I was told that the two categories’ scores do not correlate, i.e. you can’t intermix the lists using their numeric scores.

Did you hear this as a general observation, or was it more of a formal rule within the rating system?

The reason I ask is Golfweek frequently intermixes the rating of classic and modern courses to form all kind of ranked lists. Below are 6 intermixed list they currently have published. All of the rankings in this list are based on the course's rating score.

Top 200 resort courses in the U.S.
Top 100 U.S. public-access courses
Top 200 residential golf courses in the U.S.Top 50 courses in Mexico, Caribbean, Atlantic islands and Central America
Top 50 Casino Golf Courses
Top 40 Campus Courses

[Ronald Montesano]

What about this guy? Two pages in and nary a mention. Perhaps a bit later in the rivalry stage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Muirhead

1. Great courses CANNOT be overshadowed. Lies can be told, but they are always disproven.

2. RTJ could not have cared about every architect out there. After he dispatched those he considered to be true rivals (by hook and by crook) he must have focused on his brand across the world.

[Charlie Goerges]

I’m not a rater, but years ago I was told that the two categories’ scores do not correlate, i.e. you can’t intermix the lists using their numeric scores.

Did you hear this as a general observation, or was it more of a formal rule within the rating system?

The reason I ask is Golfweek frequently intermixes the rating of classic and modern courses to form all kind of ranked lists. Below are 6 intermixed list they currently have published. All of the rankings in this list are based on the course's rating score.

Top 200 resort courses in the U.S.
Top 100 U.S. public-access courses
Top 200 residential golf courses in the U.S.Top 50 courses in Mexico, Caribbean, Atlantic islands and Central America
Top 50 Casino Golf Courses
Top 40 Campus Courses

It’s possible that it’s different now than it was then, but I was given to believe the two lists were entirely separate, and for statistical reasons it wouldn’t really work to intermingle the lists. At the time I thought I’d be clever and combine the lists using a spreadsheet, but I was disabused of that notion by multiple people. It may have been that the questionnaires were different between the two categories or something to that effect, but I don’t remember.

[Jim Sherma]

More in line with the original thread premise and referencing the three architects of that RTJ era that I am most familiar with George Fazio, the Gordon's and Ed Ault):


George Fazio definitely appears to be in a higher echelon than the Gordon's or Ault and designed some meaningful courses in that era - I'm most familiar with Hershey CC - East Course, Moselem Springs and Downingtown CC - all are difficult courses to score well on and tend to have greens that are above grade and therefore requiring more of an aerial approach to score well on. The fairways are mostly lay of the land with limited fairway bunkering - definitely a look that has not aged well compared to the more sculpted and shaped modern look. The bunkering tends to be large with sharp edges and flashed faces cut into the elevated green pads. The putting surfaces have good movement and variety of styles and drainage patterns throughout the round. His portfolio covered a much wider reach and courses such as Butler National, Jupiter Hills, and Champions certainly were high profile. I am very interested in playing Squires Club, Waynesborough and Chester Valley to see more of his work.


The Gordon's portfolio was more regional being centered in and around Philadelphia. The upper end of the portfolio that I am most familiar with are all of a high standard. Saucon Valley Grace and Weyhill, Sunnybrook, and Hillendale outside of Baltimore. are all very good courses (I am referencing pre-renovation at Weyhill and White Manor). Other good courses include Locust Valley (NLE), the 27 at Sparrows Point in MD, and Bethlehem Municipal GC. I do think that there is more of a sameness to how their greens. It is easy to see the same basic holes across their courses, although this may just be a function of having played so many rounds on their courses.


I generally think of Ed Ault's work as a step down from George Fazio's and the Gordon's. I am not referring to the more modern style of Ault/Clark such as Hayfields in MD or River Creek Club in VA but rather his earlier work in the 60's and 70's. These courses tend to be solid places to play that made good use of the more interesting parts of their property. Courses that I most familiar with include Hunt Valley, Turf Valley, Montgomery CC and Piney Branch in MD along with Outdoor CC, Toftrees and Monroe Valley (NLE) in PA. I would happily play any of them again but would not go too far out of my way to do so. My guess is that he did not get a lot of great land nor budgets to work with and still managed to make good courses for his clients that have stayed relevant. I am interested to see what his work at Baltimore CC is like, I have heard good things about it but have only played the Tillinghast course when there. 
 
p.s. In my opinion Golden Horseshoe - Gold is a great course, wonderful land and RTJ put a really good course upon it. It does not get rated as highly as it should and if it was hidden in a top-secret compound like Kinloch I have no doubt that it would be.

[Tom_Doak]

I’m not a rater, but years ago I was told that the two categories’ scores do not correlate, i.e. you can’t intermix the lists using their numeric scores.

Did you hear this as a general observation, or was it more of a formal rule within the rating system?

The reason I ask is Golfweek frequently intermixes the rating of classic and modern courses to form all kind of ranked lists. Below are 6 intermixed list they currently have published. All of the rankings in this list are based on the course's rating score.

Top 200 resort courses in the U.S.
Top 100 U.S. public-access courses
Top 200 residential golf courses in the U.S.Top 50 courses in Mexico, Caribbean, Atlantic islands and Central America
Top 50 Casino Golf Courses
Top 40 Campus Courses

It’s possible that it’s different now than it was then, but I was given to believe the two lists were entirely separate, and for statistical reasons it wouldn’t really work to intermingle the lists. At the time I thought I’d be clever and combine the lists using a spreadsheet, but I was disabused of that notion by multiple people. It may have been that the questionnaires were different between the two categories or something to that effect, but I don’t remember.

The criteria are slightly different for the two lists in one of the ten categories they rate, so they shouldn't be directly compared.  But it's such a small difference that the magazine frequently violates its own rule to produce additional lists.


The difference in criteria is also somewhat incoherent:  I can see why 2(a) should apply to classic courses, but not why 2(b) applies only to modern courses.


2A. Integrity of original design (Classic)
   The extent to which subsequent changes are compatible with the original design and enhance the course rather than undermine or weaken it.

2B. Quality of feature shaping (Modern)
   The extent to which the land’s features have been enhanced though earthmoving and shaping to form a landscape that suits the game and has aesthetic/thematic coherence