Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ronald Montesano on August 09, 2012, 01:40:14 PM
-
Those of you from Rochester, doubtless know this course. Ed Homsey weeps when it is mentioned. What was it? What happened to it? Who designed it? It's recollection time.
-
Ron--Now you've got me smiling. No more tears. I have no solid information about the architectural history of Durand-Eastman. At one time, information had led me to believe that it was one of Robert Trent Jones, Sr's first golf courses. Turns out that was not the case. There are records indicating that there was a 9-hole course on the current grounds as early as 1917. And, according to a history on the Durand-Eastman website, 9 holes were added in 1931. There are unconfirmed reports that Donald Ross had something to do with the course. The best documentation comes from a 1935 Rochester newspaper report that linked Robert Trent Jones and a Park Director with the creation of a new course. His son, Bobby, visited Stafford CC a few years ago. He was on a mission to visit every course that his father was connected with. I am sorry to say that I cannot recall his exact words when I asked about Durand-Eastman, but he acknowledged it as a course he wanted to visit.
I first played the course in the early 1960s. Already, the parks department had removed bunkering. I cannot recall that there was any bunikering left on the course. The setting alone made it a pleasure to walk those grounds (there were no riding carts available, at the time.), and the course presented many challenges and strategic opportunities. Each hole had memorable distinct features that I can still picture in my mind. During that time, there were 10 holes on the "front" and 8 on the back. The finishing hole was a long par four through a very narrow corridor lined with trees to a green sitting on a shallow plateau. One of the best finishing holes you see anywhere.
But, course maintenance, and who knows what other factors, began to take an upper hand in the care of the course. I think for "speed of play" purposes, they abandoned one of the best par three holes I've seen and replaced it with a vanilla par three that shortened the walk from #6, up over the hill to the 7th. They took steps to create a front nine and back nine by taking a beautiful little 115 yard par three and combining it with the following par 4 to make a silly par 5. On the back, they created a new par three; an interesting hole, but it gave them two par threes in a row. Then, they reversed the nines.
-
I sent the Durnad Eastman GC some info around a year ago, part of which contained a drawing of the golf course. There was good evidence that Donald Ross built the original course at DE
-
Wow...bet they feel great about destroying north Rochester's Mona Lisa...
-
As I recall there was one (maybe two) article/s referencing Ross at DE that I sent to them. I found the articles by accident while looking for some other info on Ross. The club believed Ross built the original 9 but they had no corroboration, but the article/s helped in that regard.
After passing them along to DE I think I deleted them, but I did save the 1918 drawing of the course:
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/7749560434_7a73717bba_b.jpg)
-
Here's the relevant paragraph about Ross' involvement at DE:
R0CHESTER DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE - THURSDAY - SEPTEMBER 21 - 1916.
Commissioner Lamberton said that he had not yet received the report of Donald J. Ross, of Holyoke, Mass., on the proposed golf course at Durand-Eastman Park. He said that the department had no intention of spending 120,000 on a course at the park, as had been intimated.
It is planned rather to construct a nine-hole course at an expense of $4,000 or not to exceed $5,000. Such a course would be sufficient, he said, until sometime in the future when funds would be available to complete a full course of eighteen holes.
-
How in the holy name of bean counters do you go from 4 grand for 9 holes to 120 K for 18? Must have been a whale of a back nine!
-
120k was intimated by 'someone' as the price of building the course, and not what the city intended to spend.
An article about the RTJsr course at DE mentioned that Gene Sarazen was going to play an exhibition match with him on opening day, after which the two of them were heading over to Colgate to start planning 'the Sarazen' course for the university.
-
It looks as if those who put together a golf course history and the Durand-Eastman website used Jim's info. They posted the map that Jim posted in this thread. As I understand it, that is the 9-hole course from 1917. It bears no resemblance to the course that I know so well from the early 1960s. The roads are very similar and, of course, the lake is in the same place, but I believe that the 1917 course ceased to exist in the early 1930s.
-
I believe that Tom MacWood has ground level and aerial photos of Jones' original course, and I think he posted some of them here (or perhaps I saw them elsewhere). Anyway, maybe he'll see this and drop some of them in.
-
I have logged more rounds on this course than any other I've played, probably in the 500 range. I grew up 5 miles south and used to ride the bus there, clubs in tow- then walk from Lakeshore Blvd down to the 18th tee, play that hole, then pay for my round and start on 1. Later on, I was the course manager for a few years during summers in college. I love the course like it's my son, but quite frankly it needs a restoration. The conditions are pretty bad, and some of the lines have changed due to tree overgrowth. It really needs the bunkers to be brought back on some of the holes for proper framing. The greens need a complete rebuild (but with the same slopes!) as they are just not capable of cutting low enough to have proper green speed. Of course, a driving range (or even warmup range) would be a huge addition.
They switched the 9's, so the old #10 across the road is now #1. But from my numbering perspective, it's still #10.
There's a new clubhouse, which is really nice and fits the park well.
They brought back the old #5, so there's two par threes from the same box. You can go either the "old" way (perpendicular to #4), or the "new" way (parallel to #4). The green on the "old" way (the rebuilt one) was not constructed correctly, and doesn't get much light or air, so it doesn't grass up properly.
#1 was changed from a par 5 to a par 4 and the tee moved up 100 yards or so to make room for a new entrance road and halfway house. Bad decision in my opinion, as the green slopes away and was not built to accept the mid iron most mid to high handicap players hit into it (at 395 yards into the wind.)
So here's my piece of the course. #16, the first of the back to back par 3's, was a terrible hole. Flat, completely out of character, and obviously thrown in to make the 10-8 into a 9-9. In around 1993, they brought in a no name designer to fix a few drainage issues, and because it's a public facility there was a county meeting regarding changes made. A couple weeks before the meeting, I (15 at the time) brought a sketch to the designer of what I thought should be done to the hole- push the tee 100 yards back into the trees up the hill to the right of 15 fairway, and move the green up to the top of the hill, taking out 3 old trees that stood behind the old green- creating a roughly 330 yard par 4 with a ton of movement and character. Well the guy thought it was fantastic, so I got invited to present the idea with him to the board and public. At the meeting, the environmentalists went absolutely crazy on me and the rest of the golf people. "What about the birds that live in these trees", "what about the deer that hide up there", blah blah blah. In the end we compromised- moved the tee back about 40 yards, the green 40 yards, for a driveable par 4 of 265 yards. The problem was the designer wasn't allowed to take out some of the trees originally planned, so half (the top right tier) is completely blocked, and the green wasn't built correctly, so it's rock hard compared to the rest of the course. However, it's a cool hole (marshy pond left and right, hill that repels drives that come up short of the green and throws them every different direction, an almost impossible 60 yard shot if you lay up to the bottom of the hilll) and there's plenty of different of ways to play it. A friend of mine who fought a nasty snap hook would literally hit 9 iron 9 iron on it.
I know a lot of people who played it before they combined #4 & #5 to make a par 5 lament the loss of the short par 3, but without the bunkers (making it a classic "short"), the par 3 would have been a joke of a hole- 110 yards downhill with no defense. And the current #4 par 5 is actually really good, if you want to reach it in two you have to work it left to right off the tee then thread a mid iron to fairway wood right to left through the chute. And if you don't, most of the layup area has so many rolls, good luck getting a flat lie.
That said, there are some truly great holes there. #2 is a beast, #3 is a really good "have a go" par 4, #6 has one of the most interesting greens anywhere, #7 is the hardest 385 yard hole I've ever played (ever seen a 4 tiered green after a 90 degree dogleg with a creek defending the dogleg?!?) #10-13 are all very challenging and interesting holes which if in proper condition everybody would rave over. And of course, #18 is a unique hole with the glacier carving bobsled run fairway.
For those that have never played it, the most comparable course I've played is Cobbs Creek. A strange mix of goofy, unique, and fantastic.
-
I've overlaid Jim's map with today's golf course. 2&3 would be really cool holes, as the drop from the current clubhouse to the current #3 (#12) is over 100 feet- maybe as much as 150 feet in spots. It looks like from the map #3 would be back up the hill.
(http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm154/philcski/DEGC1.jpg)
-
It is obvious to me that Phil knows and loves the Durand-Eastman course. I'm not interested in engaging in any argument, but merely wish to express my view that the original "short" 115 yard par 3 fourth hole was not defenseless. It was a very shallow green, and a shot that fell just short, or backed up off the green, ended in a very difficult position. A shot that was just a bit long, ended up on a bank giving a difficult chip back to the green. The overall look of the hole had an intimidating factor. It was not a "gimme". And, I am not at all impressed with the par 5 that was created from the combination of the original 4th and 5th holes. I will always lament the loss of the original design.
-
It is obvious to me that Phil knows and loves the Durand-Eastman course. I'm not interested in engaging in any argument, but merely wish to express my view that the original "short" 115 yard par 3 fourth hole was not defenseless. It was a very shallow green, and a shot that fell just short, or backed up off the green, ended in a very difficult position. A shot that was just a bit long, ended up on a bank giving a difficult chip back to the green. The overall look of the hole had an intimidating factor. It was not a "gimme". And, I am not at all impressed with the par 5 that was created from the combination of the original 4th and 5th holes. I will always lament the loss of the original design.
Don't get me wrong- no argument here. I LOVE a short par 3. Many people have told me how much they loved that hole- you are definitely in the majority here. I think it would be a really cool hole if they still had the bunkers. I saw the original picture once but alas can't find it on the vast Internet. The original par 4 was very tough! More than once we played it that way (the "hole" for the par 3 was the red tee marker) and skipped the 16th before the redesign.
Another interesting note- it hosted a USGA Public Links qualifier in 1999. Erik Compton was in town for the Monroe Invitational, and ended up winning the spot at 1 under 139. I shot 72 in the first round and was tied for 2nd with my friend Kevin Haefner (who had finished like 3rd in the NCAA's that year.) Erik had 71 then followed it up with a solid 68. Kevin got the alternate spot at 143 I think.
If and when I have a lot of money I will donate it to restore the course. Maybe a fund could be started through grassroots efforts? How much would it take to install maybe 25 bunkers, redo the greens, and regrass some of the bad areas, $500k?
-
I would love to be able to contribute to that renovation project, though I would worry about how well the course would be maintained following that renovation. Given a complete renovation/restoration, where would you rank Durand-Eastman among all other courses in Rochester? Back in the day, I would have placed it in the top 5--never in terms of conditioning, but in terms of its setting, the routing, green sites, and the level of interest, excitement, and challenge it presented.
-
Found this article in the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle from over the weekend. I'll believe it when I see it.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120818/SPORTS/308180035/Monroe-County-golf
Ed- I think it would be in the top 5 of publics with a restoration.
-
120k was intimated by 'someone' as the price of building the course, and not what the city intended to spend.
An article about the RTJsr course at DE mentioned that Gene Sarazen was going to play an exhibition match with him on opening day, after which the two of them were heading over to Colgate to start planning 'the Sarazen' course for the university.
Jim,
Do you have this article?
-
Alex,
Here's two of them. I might have a couple more at home so I'll post them if they turn up.
http://tinyurl.com/9xyequp
http://tinyurl.com/cfctr64