Canadians and The Curious Case to Disregard History

[drewharvie]

The advancement of clubs is certainly a factor to the "modernization" of golf (that was one of the driving factors of the golden age! Modernizing Bendelow/Victorian age layouts.

But I don't think that's exclusive to the root of Canada's issues.

There's numerous examples in the US of great to even good layouts being able to keep the integrity of their golf course without having to "modernize" the greens, bunkers, etc. They kept with the style of the original architect, and added back tees. Quaker Ridge is a great example of this; they converted the yardages of Tillinghast's golf course when it opened to modern yardages, and built everything back to where it would've been with Tillie if he had built in 2018 with the current tech.

I don't think Hurdzan overhauling Ottawa Hunt and choosing to ignore the Park Jr. roots is a tech issue, nor do I think Royal Mayfair doing the same with Furber & Ted Locke is. Royal Montreal is one of the biggest question marks, too, as Dick Wilson built championship layouts, with excellent bunkers and generally sound design principals (he was a protege of Flynn, after all), so it's weird they felt the need to bring in Rees Jones, when almost all of his stuff on classic courses is being ripped up in the US.

Tech has for sure changed it, but I don't think it's a deciding factor when you consider the architecture/golf course trends in the US/Canada/Australia/England/Japan, etc.

Another good example is Shinnecock Hills, which looks exactly like the old aerials & Flynn drawings, yet they built longer tees to accommodate a US Open, and didn't compromise the layout. The same could be said about Cal Club, where they had the interstate steal land from them, so Kyle Phillips built holes that Macan or Mackenzie would've found to merge the two styles (Cal Club is actually example 1 or a restoration/renovation). For a lesser example, Davenport matches old aerials, and even Omaha CC. Cherry Hills, San Francisco, Waverly, Seminole, The Country Club at Pepper Pike, Philly Cricket, etc. These are regionally diverse examples that are spitting similarities to the old aerials

[NiblickJeff]

I should also add the following question: Do these changes make the course more playable, more enjoyable or more accessible? I didn't think so.

[Arthur Dailey]

I was actually thinking of starting a different thread about all this.

Ive even gone so far as researching how to get a supply of Balata Titleists to use. Unfort no company makes balata balls anymore and i sort of think playing with a pre Pro V1 era ball would be also helpful. You can get Pro 100s (I have a couple of sleeves still) but of course keeping that supply updated enough for consistent use is looking to be pretty pricey.
.

I have an unopened dozen Z-Balata Spalding balls, circa 1993. Would these fit your description/requirements?

[jamesduncangolf]

I'll just touch on Shinnecock, as it's the only one I have personal first hand experience with, as a US Open venue at least.

I'm a touch lost by the train of thought here again, Drew. It starts off on one path, then seems diverts again to a completely different line of logic.

But I don't think that's exclusive to the root of Canada's issues.

There's numerous examples in the US of great to even good layouts being able to keep the integrity of their golf course without having to "modernize" the greens, bunkers, etc. They kept with the style of the original architect, and added back tees.
Another good example is Shinnecock Hills, which looks exactly like the old aerials & Flynn drawings, yet they built longer tees to accommodate a US Open, and didn't compromise the layout.

I mean there was an EXTENSIVE renovation at Shinnecock in the lead up to 2018 that is well documented. But just looking at aerials and using that as some barometer of what they "did" misses the entire point, to me at least.

The fairway grass over the entire layout was completely changed from Rye BACK to Fescue (!!).

I mean, that is a pretty major "modernization" effort lol -- even if it was one intended to retro the course "back". Plus almost every tree was removed. The fairways were running at the speeds of some course's greens (I know, I rolled some balls down the 9th fairway).

I agree that the greens went "back' but not considering the change of the playing turf (or return of turf!) and just lining up aerials gets into "red zone" territory for me ha. Hence when that type of thinking happens in a reno (McBroom, I'm looking at you maybe? lol -- just jokes but still) that is when things go "south" for me maybe.

I guess I'm sort of arguing without that effort, they might have had to indeed change the course in a bunch of other ways to make it compete.

Talking about a reno for a US Open and or Tour event and getting something for the members of a classic course is a tough dance -- as was noted above. There aren't too many examples of a reno needing to satisfy both parties and using that as a barometer for what is happening (or not happening) in Canada might be troublesome -- Canuck Open venues aside.

I know what you're trying to say though -- its a good point and I agree with it. But I disagree that somehow Canada "isn't" doing efforts like this. I do see the same types efforts happening in Canada now, just not on understandably the same scale and in the right cases/clubs who want it, continuing in the near future.

[jamesduncangolf]

I have an unopened dozen Z-Balata Spalding balls, circa 1993. Would these fit your description/requirements?

oh yeah for sure! Maybe I should start a dedicated thread - just let me know if that would be helpful -- I have some research on what is currently going on in Canada that could be a starting point/joint venture

[Arthur Dailey]

oh yeah for sure! Maybe I should start a dedicated thread - just let me know if that would be helpful -- I have some research on what is currently going on in Canada that could be a starting point/joint venture

I'll keep them safe. They were at the time what my father played.

[drewharvie]

I'll just touch on Shinnecock, as it's the only one I have personal first hand experience with, as a US Open venue at least.

I'm a touch lost by the train of thought here again, Drew. It starts off on one path, then seems diverts again to a completely different line of logic.



I mean there was an EXTENSIVE renovation at Shinnecock in the lead up to 2018 that is well documented. But just looking at aerials and using that as some barometer of what they "did" misses the entire point, to me at least.

The fairway grass over the entire layout was completely changed from Rye BACK to Fescue (!!).

I mean, that is a pretty major "modernization" effort lol -- even if it was one intended to retro the course "back". Plus almost every tree was removed. The fairways were running at the speeds of some course's greens (I know, I rolled some balls down the 9th fairway).

I agree that the greens went "back' but not considering the change of the playing turf (or return of turf!) and just lining up aerials gets into "red zone" territory for me ha. Hence when that type of thinking happens in a reno (McBroom, I'm looking at you maybe? lol -- just jokes but still) that is when things go "south" for me maybe.

I know what you're trying to say though -- its a good point and I agree with it. But I disagree that somehow Canada "isn't" doing efforts like this. I do see the same types efforts happening in Canada now, just not on understandably the same scale and in the right cases/clubs who want it, continuing in the near future.

Golf courses will determine which grasses work best for them in the current years, just like irrigation systems. I'm not too worried about if a golf course is Rye, or Bent, or Fescue in this instance. Soils and climates have changed since William Flynn was walking the earth. That's a whole different argument. The point is the architecture and Canadians seem to renovate that out of style because of either over excited architects or committees. I'm not focussed on the turf aspect. Frankly, I'm not sure how it relates to OP. I think you're getting confused.

I can think of 5 pure restorations in Canada:

-Victoria (Jeff Mingay)
-Cherry Hill (Ian Andrew)
-Essex minus the ponds (Bruce Hepner of Doak's firm)
-Highlands Links minus the cart paths (Ian Andrew)
-Calgary (Ron Forse)

That's not to say other clubs aren't "renovating," like St. George's, Toronto, Roseland, Capilano, Elmhurst, etc. And I would agree it's happening, very slowly, as other clubs look to do it. I wish I could name names, but St. Charles is a good example.

The whole point of the thread is to acknowledge and restore historically interesting architecture, which the US, Japan, Australia, England, Scotland, Netherlands, etc have been doing for awhile. We can't even get that right; we can tackle turf when we get that figured out!

[Pingeye2_fan]

I have an unopened dozen Z-Balata Spalding balls, circa 1993. Would these fit your description/requirements?

When I started golfing we had a friend from Scotland and he would give me some Dunlop 65's to use, they each came wrapped in a little wrapper.

Nice because they were the British size.

[jamesduncangolf]

I'm not focussed on the turf aspect. Frankly, I'm not sure how it relates to OP. I think you're getting confused.

I guess my point is this:

You keep holding up works in the US et al as "examples", but without actually calculating the enormous amount of details (and therefore budgets) that have gone into these projects. Then seem to say:

"Oh c'mon Canada -- why can't we do it like THIS!?! We must be just heathens up here! "-- lol -- gross paraphase, but that's a bit of what I read into it.

These are huge expenditures and sometimes needed to infact keep a classic layout "intact" for current profession Tour play (and turf is just one way to do that). But something that few courses in Canada would even need to worry about. That's why I think it's a touch unfair to arm chair quarterback some renos here in Canada. The courses are doing what they feel their membership wants and is in scope of making them be able to attract and retain members -- now whether I indeed think they are successful is moot, and I have seen some bad renos/retrofits recently too.

I can think of 5 pure restorations in Canada:

-Victoria (Jeff Mingay)
-Cherry Hill (Ian Andrew)
-Essex minus the ponds (Bruce Hepner of Doak's firm)
-Highlands Links minus the cart paths (Ian Andrew)
-Calgary (Ron Forse)

That's a pretty nice little list -- and all ones I'd say were successful. And it proves my point in a little bit ie: there is work there fitting your desires, we will just never be on a grand scale as some other golf centers in terms of #s of projects.

The whole point of the thread is to acknowledge and restore historically interesting architecture, which the US, Japan, Australia, England, Scotland, Netherlands, etc have been doing for awhile. We can't even get that right; we can tackle turf when we get that figured out!

Which is why I chimed in -- the thread seemed uniquely "Canadian" to me ha! (I say that in a nice way)

To kick ourselves down, yet not take stock of the good that is happening. And then compare our efforts to "world" venues, when they sometimes have a completely different set of criteria to address in someways (major competitions or keeping in the rotation for Open regional qualifiers, World Tour Q schools etc etc -- hello turf conditions!).

I humbly think judging Canadian clubs trying to simply satisfy their members and stay in business against builds at a Shinnecock lets say, is apples to oranges, and much too harsh on poor Canada!

In the case where "wrongs" have been done to a course that is of historical interest in Canada, and I agree I wish that didn't happen to our gems and we cherish what we have, again I go back to my original chime in (and have given a few examples so far!):

we're in pretty darn good company lol -- every country has done it for ages and in the case of the US, even worse.

Anyways I think the post is a good one, overall.

[jamesduncangolf]

When I started golfing we had a friend from Scotland and he would give me some Dunlop 65's to use, they each came wrapped in a little wrapper.

Nice because they were the British size.

Ha! Yeah those were so awesome! I think there is a couple of vids on youtube where someone tries to play with them ha!

I have a few old tourneys and Wilson Prostaffs I got as a kid at the 1979 Canadian Open (I have Tom Watson's Prostaff and David Grahams's Tourney among others) I'd pull them out for a few hits but of course I know that's the very time I'd thin it ha!

[drewharvie]

I guess my point is this:

You keep holding up works in the US et al as "examples", but without actually calculating the enormous amount of details (and therefore budgets) that have gone into these projects. Then seem to say:

"Oh c'mon Canada -- why can't we do it like THIS!?! We must be just heathens up here! "-- lol -- gross paraphase, but that's a bit of what I read into it.

These are huge expenditures and sometimes needed to infact keep a classic layout "intact" for current profession Tour play (and turf is just one way to do that). But something that few courses in Canada would even need to worry about. That's why I think it's a touch unfair to arm chair quarterback some renos here in Canada. The courses are doing what they feel their membership wants and is in scope of making them be able to attract and retain members -- now whether I indeed think they are successful is moot, and I have seen some bad renos/retrofits recently too.



That's a pretty nice little list -- and all ones I'd say were successful. And it proves my point in a little bit ie: there is work there fitting your desires, we will just never be on a grand scale as some other golf centers in terms of #s of projects.



Which is why I chimed in -- the thread seemed uniquely "Canadian" to me ha! (I say that in a nice way)

To kick ourselves down, yet not take stock of the good that is happening. And then compare our efforts to "world" venues, when they sometimes have a completely different set of criteria to address in someways (major competitions or keeping in the rotation for Open regional qualifiers, World Tour Q schools etc etc -- hello turf conditions!).

I humbly think judging Canadian clubs trying to simply satisfy their members and stay in business against builds at a Shinnecock lets say, is apples to oranges, and much too harsh on poor Canada!

In the case where "wrongs" have been done to a course that is of historical interest in Canada, and I agree I wish that didn't happen to our gems and we cherish what we have, again I go back to my original chime in (and have given a few examples so far!):

we're in pretty darn good company lol -- every country has done it for ages and in the case of the US, even worse.

Anyways I think the post is a good one, overall.

I will agree that it's a different scale, and I don't think Canadian clubs will shut their course for a year like Oakland Hills to overhaul and restore Ross' course before RTJ demolished it. With that being said, there's a handful of great clubs coast to coast who have spent the money and gotten worse (in a not so different way than Oakland Hills, Inverness Club or Oak Hill--but they were hosting US Opens and PGA's!), and I'm just thinking going forward, clubs will spend money, so hopefully it's in a historically important way.

Just my perspective. I'll find some old aerials and post them in this thread, and I thank you for your contributions!

By no means am I suggesting clubs install the sub-air system and shut the course down for 18 months (looking at you, Merion!), but I know a few architects who haven't looked at old aerials for a renovation of a good golf course (Darrell Huxham of Beaconsfield) which is weird. But I agree, I'm hoping the days of that are over and the new school ushers in restorations and restorative renovations!

[Pingeye2_fan]

Ha! Yeah those were so awesome! I think there is a couple of vids on youtube where someone tries to play with them ha!

I have a few old tourneys and Wilson Prostaffs I got as a kid at the 1979 Canadian Open (I have Tom Watson's Prostaff and David Grahams's Tourney among others) I'd pull them out for a few hits but of course I know that's the very time I'd thin it ha!

I think they used to fly a little better because they were just a bit smaller, better in the wind too.

[jamesduncangolf]

I think they used to fly a little better because they were just a bit smaller, better in the wind too.

Indeed they did! You are correct! If one watches the older Open Broadcasts the R&A has been posting, there is always comments on whether the US players have decided to use the "British" ball (the smaller one) -- I like geeking out over this stuff ha so don't mind me

(I started a new thread in Equipment so this one doenst get too messy ha!)

[Arthur Dailey]

Ha! Yeah those were so awesome! I think there is a couple of vids on youtube where someone tries to play with them ha!

I have a few old tourneys and Wilson Prostaffs I got as a kid at the 1979 Canadian Open (I have Tom Watson's Prostaff and David Grahams's Tourney among others) I'd pull them out for a few hits but of course I know that's the very time I'd thin it ha!

Circa 1977/78 we used to play the British sized ball as a friend had brought over quite a few, which he handed out as gifts. Believe they were called 'Ace'?

In the 1990s often played the TopFlite Magna which was 'larger' than regular golf balls. But still 'legal'. Actually believe that it helped my putting.

I had a hickory shafted, mallet headed putter that came with my first set of clubs. Wish that I still had it.

[PistolPete]

Maybe there should be a dedicated thread about it -- cause I just have a question about your comment about the current greens.

Were they always Poa? Or was that an update at some point? Or did they naturally switch over? Or where they once Toronto Creeping Bent (from Toronto Golf) and then got washed out in the 80s -- along with everything else?

https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/mitgc/article/198435.pdf

I only ask because NY State once was apparently considering switching Black's greens (Bethpage Black, where I play/now "played" most of my golf --covid! doh!) over from Poa to bent (fun fact: if you notice the 2nd green rolling differently when you play there, it is because it is actually bent, the only one on all 5 courses)

They were also going to bring in Coore Crenshaw at one point to "redo" the greens.

Personally, I'm glad they didn't do any of the above.

Just wondering. Thx!

I'm far from an expert. My guess is over time they switched over. All the greens have been rebuilt as a part of this reno and are now "USGA greens" which allows for significantly better drainage and will mitigate most if not all the risk of winter burnout. With these rebuilds it now feels like we aren't playing Russian rolouette every winter & having the chance of emerging into spring with 18 severly damaged greens i.e. what happened several years ago