Golf Club Atlas

GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: T_MacWood on January 25, 2004, 10:21:08 AM

Title: Manoir Richelieu
Post by: T_MacWood on January 25, 2004, 10:21:08 AM
I'm not certain which came first Manoir Richelieu or Jasper Park--they were built around the same time--but MR was ever bit as spectacular and a little more famous.

What has become of this gem? With efforts to 'restore' Cape Breton, Banff and Jasper...wouldn't this course be the next logical choice?
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Matt Kardash on January 25, 2004, 01:14:14 PM
I went to Le Manoir Richelieu this summer on my way back from Cape Breton. When I was there they had just finished adding 10 new holes (I believe designed by Graham Cooke's team) and they were restoring the other 18. I believe they added 10 holes and by doing so got rid of one of the old ones.

Nine holes were being renovated, and were completey in the dirt when I was there. They let us play the other 9 old holes (that they hadn't begun renovating) plus the new holes.

The new holes are about as visually spectacular as anything you will ever see. They were actually blasted out of the cliffs which have to be a thousand feet above the saint Lawrence river (which is so wide that it looks like an ocean). However, the holes themselves are anything but playable. The par 3's all look exactly the same and I swear there is a par 5 that has a split fairway where by you need to hit like a 4 iron to keep it short but can't hit driver as the split is too wide. Some of the holes are so downhill that yardage means nothing. The first hole, which is a par 5 of over 500 yards, I hit driver - 9 iron. Also, since this course is on top of a very high bluff, it might be the windiest place ever.

The old holes I played had no spectacular views or anything, but for the most part were much more fun. I remember the greens having some absolutley wild contours. There were a couple of real cool holes. There was this very short par 4 with a green built up on a nob similar to the 4th at Highland links.
However the old holes were in real bad shape and some of the fairways had gotten so narrow that they were impossible to hit. So I guess a renovation was really in order.

I imagine by this summer the nine holes that were in the dirt last summer are ready and that they will probably be fixing the nine holes I played last summer.

The coolest thing about this place might have been the driving range which sits right on top of a cliff and you shoot down the cliff towards the river which must be like 1000 feet below. The wind is so strong and in your face up there that a lob wedge might almost come back to your feet if your not careful!!
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Robert Thompson on January 25, 2004, 09:15:33 PM
Tom,

While I haven't seen the Manoir, I'll say I have significant concerns about the "restoration" at Highlands and Banff. Graham Cooke's work at Highlands is suspect at best -- he took little interest in the fine photos the course has from around the time of construction and never spoke with the pro who has been around the course since the mid-1950s. On top of that, the cart path work is truly awful and much of the bunker work is questionable. Looks like Graham (or whomever he had do the work) never actually saw a Thompson course. That he has received accolades for his work there is a shame.

The real shame about Highlands is that it is a government run course and they aren't likely to see any more money anytime soon.

As for Banff -- now there is a course that could use someone with a genuine interest in restoration. While some of it has been left in place, there's been a lot of monkeying with it over time.

I'd say, to date, that only St. George's (of the great Thompson courses) has truly been restored -- by Ian Andrew.But even that has seen a lot of tinkering, given Robbie Robinson's work at the course in 1966-67.

Sounds like Graham is just ignoring history at Manoir Richelieu, just as he has at other courses he has "restored." Quite a shame. Some architects should stick with new work....

Robert
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Mike_Cirba on January 25, 2004, 09:24:35 PM
Robert Thompson;

While I've never seen Graham Cooke's work, your report to me seems a sad commentary on the bastardization of the word "restoration" by too many modern architects.

It seems that much of the money to be made in new design is drying up, while "restoration" is the hot new buzzword and place to find work.  While I can't fault anyone for pursuing this work, one would hope that it would be done with sensitivity and an educated approach to historical preservation.  All too often, that's hardly the case.
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: henrye on January 25, 2004, 09:25:55 PM
"As for Banff -- now there is a course that could use someone with a genuine interest in restoration. While some of it has been left in place, there's been a lot of monkeying with it over time. "

Robert - I couldn't disagree with you more.  Banff is fine just the way it is.  For god sake, I hope they don't try to alter it, except for maybe re-numbering the holes to their original configuration.
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Robert Thompson on January 25, 2004, 10:50:37 PM
Henrye: Banff -- I agree that it shouldn't be touched -- if it were anywhere near intact. In fact, most, if not all, of the bunkers have been redone -- many of which lack Thompson's signature flair. The new first hole is not Thompson at all -- and the rerouting is heretical. The course had the best clubhouse in golf, but now has a mid-1970s monster.
Thompson's original routing was about starting with one of the best holes in golf, slowing the pace a bit, and then ending with majesty. That is all lost in the new routing.

So, Henrye, I'd agree that Banff shouldn't be tinkered with -- but since it already has been altered, I'm all for having some knowing restoration expert try to put it back together.

Even with all the changes, it is still a great golf course, though often one in tough shape.

Robert
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: T_MacWood on January 25, 2004, 10:56:27 PM
Robert
I was affraid of the that. I'm very hesitant to return to Cape Breton for fear what I might be deeply disapointed.....it was such a prestine (albeit neglected) course prior to the 'restoration'. The thought of carts and cart paths just doesn't seem right. And I've seen evidence of new bunkers that bear no relationship to what Thompson had built. I'm affraid the greatest walk in golf, can not be the same.

I agree with you on Banff...there was a spectacular design left by Thompson every bit as specactular as the scenery. The problem with many of Thompson's best designs and Manoir Richelieu for that matter, the scenery is so beautiful, the sites are so spectacular, no mater how much the design is bastardized, the course still has a lot going for it.

Matt
The hole similar to the 4th at Cape Breton is probably the 16th. When MR opened the front nine was mostly in the forest and the back nine was more open with views of the mountains and the St. Lawerence. It sounds like the trees have encroached on to the back nine.
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Brad Klein on January 26, 2004, 05:32:05 AM
Ah yes, the virtues of unrepentant restoration.

Manoir Richelieu offers a dramatic setting, but Herbert Strong's original layout was badly routed, with about 6,100 yards squeezed out of too many terraced holes and slopes to fairways and greens that would have been simply unplayable today. It didn't help that a renovation project in the 1960s, as I recall, had eased some of the cross-fire dangers but led to some very weak holes.

As I recall, there were no original design plans or sketches to rely upon, only some very poor B&W photos, crude porgam maps, and the invariably unreliable memory of a few local veterans. The routing I saw in late 2000 was cramped, dangerous, and made very bad use of the site and there was no chance of a pure restoration. The place was overrun with Poa annua, the bunkers and tees all needed reconstruction. If they had spent the $millions needed to do that work they still would have landed a very cramped course. The only sensible way out was to expand to the west and north, which Graham Cooke's design did. Along the way the holes gained more room, better views of the St. Lawrence River and more playable ground.

The decision not to do a pure restoration made perfect sense strategically, aesthetically and economically. They kept much of the older style in the modern bunker placement, mounding and green contours, but also dramaticaly enhanced the property.
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: T_MacWood on January 26, 2004, 06:39:34 AM
Brad
Shortly after Manoir Richelieu opened a book was published called 'Golf in the World's Oldest Mountains'--written by Tom Uzzell a contributing editor for American Golfer. It was beautifully illustrated with photos and plans for each hole. Actually there are two plans for each hole--the normal view from above and a cut away view in profile.

As far as the orginal routing I see only one potential problem where the 14th green and the 2nd fairway meet (perpendicularly). Strong's remedy was to build spralling bunker behind the 14th green and parallel to the 2nd fairway. The course was also wide open in this section; golfers playing both holes would be clearly visable.

It certainly did have a lot of wild undualtions in the fairways and greens--not unlike Cape Breton (and other Herbert Strong designs). It seems ashame to wipe away that character (which was largely responsible for the course's reputation) in the name of 'modern' playability. Its not like they will be playing the Canadian Open up there any time soon. It is resort course, can't they just slow the greens down?

As some who grew up on Herbert Strong design (Inwood) I'm surprised you would so easily concede one of his greatest accomplishments.
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Robert Thompson on January 26, 2004, 08:06:37 AM
Tom: Highlands is still one of the great walks in golf, despite the cart paths, and the course's conditions are generally greatly improved with the irrigation system the club put in.
The cart paths are generally in strange locations and cross fairways often -- not a good sign. As I mentioned, I think a lot of the bunker work is questionable.

That said, Highlands remains one of the great hidden courses in the world -- very akin to Royal Dornoch, in that it is out of the way, hard to get to, but well worth the drive. I played Highlands this summer (three times in two days) and found the course is still as much fun as ever.

It is more a question of what could have been -- a proper restoration would have made Highlands even better, in my estimation.

Robert
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Brad Klein on January 26, 2004, 08:29:35 AM
Inwood, Engineers, Canterbury are in another class beyond Manoir Richelieu. I don't see what one has to do with another.

You cannot discern slopes from old B&W photos. You can by walking the ground. MR had way too many holes shoehorned into the Eastern side to merit a claim of being some sort of timeless classic. I haver never thought that every Ross course was a work of genius, either. And when you look at the work needed to renovate bunkers, tees and greens, you'd be spending $2-3 million to lock yourself in to an antiquated layout.
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Matt Kardash on January 26, 2004, 10:52:40 AM
I think I'm going to have to agree with Brad. Though I'm sure if a proper restoration was made the course could be fun, it would never be anything trully great. From the 8 holes I played it seemed like a very cramped course that had a couple of neat little holes but nothing great to make even the 4 hour drive from Montreal really worth it. But maybe when the renovation is all done I will go back and have a better feel for the whole thing.

I have to admit though, the breakfast buffet in the Manoir was amazing.
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: T_MacWood on January 26, 2004, 01:21:55 PM
Brad
I disagree that MR wasn't in the same class as the other courses, and I suspect Strong would also disagree. In his advertisements of the mid to late 20's Strong listed his credits in this order:
Engineers, Inwood, Manoir Richelieu, Lakeview, Lakewood, Canterbury, Aviation, Saucon Valley, Nassau and Rodgers Forge

Strong: "The scenery surrounding the Manoir Richelieu GC at Murray Bay is the most impressive setting for a links of which I have knowledge. The chief task I faced was to build this natural beauty into every possible feature of the play. No designer could have more varied or lavish material to work with."

The editor of 'Canadian Golfer' Ralph Reville wrote,"This Manoir course is admittedly one of the finest resorts in America. Mr. Strong personally thinks it is his masterpiece, and I am inclined to agree with him."

American Golfer wrote, "Surveying the broad expanse of the St.Lawrence, this course is one of the most striking scenic courses in the world and it is also an excellent test of golf despite its abbreviated length."

Uzzell compared the course to NGLA and Gleneagles. "It is now one of the most beautiful courses in the world...Views of sky, water and mountain forest unsurpassed; eighteen holes of golf varied, intriguingly dramatic; putting greens among the best in Canada..."

The golf course was featured in numerous articles in Golf Illustrated and American Golfer (it is also in George Thomas's book)--MR was one of the star courses of the 1920's and 30's.  

Matt
I'll take fun...too many interesting and historic designs have suffered in an effort to make them 'great'. IMO MR would have been better served spending the $2 million on Strong's mastepiece - a short sporty spectacular design for the resort clientel. Take the remaining $12 million+ and have Cooke build a second full length modern championship course elsewhere upon the property. The best of both worlds and a legendary Canadian gem would have been saved.
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Tyler Kearns on January 26, 2004, 06:05:35 PM
Robert,

   Regarding Banff, I remember reading an article ("The Ghost of Stanley Thompson") in which Les Furber was interviewed about his upcoming work at the course. In the article, he certainly paid homage to Stanley Thompson and said his work would not alter the strategic elements of the original course. In reference to the title of the article, Furber routinely questioned his design decisions at Banff, possible fearing retrobution in the after-life!! From what I understand, Furber added numerous back tees, but on some holes where that was not possible, he pushed the fairway bunkers back. Do you know on which holes this was done? Do the new bunkers resemble the old in any way? From the article, Furber was adamant that he would pay respect to Stanley Thompson by limiting course alterations, and not straying from Thompson's bunker style. As has been discussed much on this site, some architects pay lip service to the term restoration, is this blatently the case at Banff? Were the greens altered?

   After playing Capilano about a year ago, I was surprised to hear that Furber had made changes to the green complexes at No.6 & 14. Although I did not see the period photographs inside the clubhouse of the original work, others on this site have said Furber's work diminished the overall architecture of the course. Although I do not know the reasons for the changes to the course, but if they were made by a club green commitee trying to leave their mark on the course, an architect like Furber, who states a great deal of respect for Thompson should have advised them to leave well-enough alone.

Tyler Kearns
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Jeff Goldman on January 26, 2004, 06:09:31 PM
Robert Thompson,

Can you discuss the changes to Banff in a little more detail?  I was there 1 1/2 years ago and liked it very much, although I agree that the original routing is a stunner - and we're playing it that way this summer.  It sounds from you like a lot of the course isn't Stanley Thompson's work any longer.  I know the (now) 2nd hole is a carryover from Donald Ross, but what about the short par-5 ninth with the bit long pit on the right, or the "sea of bunkers" on the left on 14 (occupied by Elk when I was there) or short of the green in the fairway on the same hole, or the big one short of the green on 5?  Is the routing, but not the order, still intact?

Jeff Goldman
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Tyler Kearns on January 26, 2004, 06:14:56 PM
Robert,

  Please chime in. I was under the impression that the Thompson routing was entirely intact, and simply re-numbered starting at the original fifth hole. You stated that the present 1st hole is not Thompson at all!! Is this true? If so, that probably happened to make room for the new 1970's clubhouse. Who is responsible for the current 1st hole?

Tyler Kearns
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Ben Cowan-Dewar on January 26, 2004, 06:20:02 PM
Tyler,
The changes to the greens at Capilano were criminal. The sixth could be one of Canada's best par fours, were it not for the green.

The picture of the 14th in the clubhouse leads me to suspect that it might have been Thompson's best short par three. Though Furber does not deserve all the blame here. I think that the green was unable to drain in its original layout and was changed long before Furber arrived. I have mentioned to the current architect that redoing that green would be legend-making, but I am not sure that club would go for it.

With regards to Manoir Richelieu, I have to agree with Tom MacWood's argument. My grandfather was very fond of Richelieu, placing it among Thompson's best (somewhere in the middle I recall), but that would have been prior to 1960. I cannot believe that he would have spoken so highly were it not incredible. As for the restoration, I do not believe they are finished.

With regards to the original first hole, that is the same hole, with a back tee being added further up the hill. This is the one change that I think did help, with the exception that it makes for a tougher climb up.
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Tyler Kearns on January 26, 2004, 06:39:43 PM
Ben,

  Thanks for the reply. Are the bunkers surrounding the 6th & 14th holes at Capilano original? I wish I had seen the photographs of the original 14th, it certainly is in it's present state a lovely little hole but I have nothing to compare it to. When I was there, they were adding a new back tee to the hole (almost in the parking lot!!), and some trees had been cleared on the bank leading up to the tee from the 13th green. The clearing opened up a spectacular view of Grouse Mountain (??) from the 13th fairway.

Tyler Kearns
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Tyler Kearns on January 26, 2004, 06:40:27 PM
Ben,
 
   Could you describe the original 6th green complex at Capilano?

Tyler Kearns
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Jeff_Mingay on January 26, 2004, 07:58:59 PM
That photo of the original 14th green hanging in Capilano's clubhouse will take the breath of a golf architecture aficionado away. Honestly. As per the photo, that green would be the most interesting at Capilano today.

"Maxwell Rolls" might be the most accurate way to describe the haphazrd, rolly, natural-appearing contour within that putting surface originally. As classic as it gets, and a far, far cry from its replacement.

Restoring that green won't be easy, politically or physically, but in an ideal world, it would be done.
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Robert Thompson on January 26, 2004, 09:20:19 PM
Tyler, Jeff and Mr.Mingay:

Re: Banff.

My understanding is that the first hole is part of the contruction by Bill Robinson, which included adding the other nine. The new first is nondescript and flat, and certainly not in the league of the original opener, which includes one of the most majestic tee shots in golf.

I suspect that even if you are playing the so-called "original" routing (as Ben has so kindly been able to arrange), it will still include the new opener. For a time, it was my understanding that they rerouted the entire course to try to get more play on the new nine. Maybe Ben knows when they went back to playing the current configuration.

My second concern at Banff regards the secondary green at the Cauldron, the famed par 3. Considering how notable this hole is, Banff's management rarely has the green in play, choosing to use a poor temporary, that really isn't very temporary these days. Members complain the original green is only used about a month a year. I don't understand why they don't make the secondary green permanent -- considering the current one is the size of my queen-size bed or a fair sized ping pong table. I refused to play to this crap green, choosing to hit to the real green -- which was in great shape, by the way. I guess it would be since it is played so rarely.

Don't get me wrong, I think Banff is still great -- on some holes, like the original finisher, you get a great sense of Thompson's bunker work. But all the bunkers appear to have been redone over time -- some not as well as others. If they want a blueprint for redoing Thompson bunkers -- take a look at the work Ian Andrew is doing at St. George's, Thompson's best-known course. Now Ian is a friend, but the club is really investing in making it look like Thompson's original work -- using pictures and aerials to locate and replicate bunkers.

Re: Capilano's 14th.

I realize what Mr. Mingay and co. are saying about the green, but I still think the hole is wonderful.


Robert
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Jeff_Mingay on January 26, 2004, 10:28:46 PM
You're right, Rob. Banff could be so much more. It really could. There have indeed been some ill-advised changes (most notably, the resequencing of holes) over the years. And Furber's bunker work doesn't scream, "Wow!" It's just sorta, not that bad, not that great. Changes to the greens are noticable as well.

Where does Banff rank these days in Thompson's top-5? Probably fifth, behind St. George's, Highlands Links, Jasper and Capilano (not necessarily in that order). I haven't been to Westmount in years, but from what I remember, it might give Banff a run for fifth spot, no?

As for Capilano's 14th, c'mon! Sure, it's a neat hole as is, but look at the photo in the clubhouse again. Tell me that wouldn't be the coolest green on the course? Really.

Ian and Doug Carrick's work at St. George's has been very senstive. My hat's off to them. They're also working at Capilano, so hopefully the pure restorative-based efforts at St. Geo.'s will inspire Capilano to put as much back as they can... including that wonderful 14th green!

Signed,
Mr. Mingay  :o
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Jeff Goldman on January 27, 2004, 11:19:40 AM
Robert (and Jeff Mingay),

Thanks for your report.  When I was there, the original Cauldron green was in play all 3 rounds, and there's no doubt the original sequence will be tremendous (will we play the original tee on the terrace of the old clubhouse or the new tee much higher up? - I played both because there was a party down right, which was in play from the high tee one day).

The management now seems to at least understand that Stanley Thompson is important, and they publicize the original golf course as "The Stanley Thompson 18."  May not help undo the changes, but may help prevent further issues.

Jeff Goldman
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Philippe Binette on January 29, 2004, 12:29:40 PM
By the way, if your searching for a great S. Thompson course in Quebec, search no more than the seemingly untouched Chateau Montebello, formerly The Seigneurie Club, in the little towm of Montebello, between Ottawa and Montreal.

About Cooke's restorations, normally they are too visible, and it seems he can't get rid of his style, which works OK when he designing a course by himself, but as far as touching other courses.... But he is basically the only Golf course architect in Quebec and eastern Canada...
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Jeff_Mingay on January 29, 2004, 03:56:57 PM
Philippe,

Cooke might be the only golf architect based in Quebec, but he's not the only one willing to work there!
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: henrye on January 29, 2004, 04:20:31 PM
Jeff Mingay.  I think the bunkers at Banff look great, but I have to confess that I did not see them years ago.  I spent a week there last year.  Of the 5 Thompson courses you mentioned I have played them all except Highland Links, and of the remaining 4, I would rank Banff as the best.
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Jeff_Mingay on January 29, 2004, 04:48:28 PM
The bunkers at Banff aren't bad, henrye. They're pretty rugged in fact, aren't they. I'm not sure they resemble Thompson's original creations though. Not sure, I haven't really studied any old photos of the course.

As far as Banff's "ranking" is concerned, everyone has their preference. It's the flattest of Thompson's "top 5", which might knock it a few steps down in my book. And I think the course has a few more indifferent holes than Jasper, St. George's, Highlands Links and Capilano. I could be wrong though.

If Westmount were in excellent architectural condition, I might even prefer it to Banff - scenery aside of course! Maybe not though...
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Matt Kardash on January 29, 2004, 06:44:29 PM
Jeff Mingay,

You say Cooke is not the only architect willing to work in Quebec. However, besides Pat Ruddy(Ile de Montreal) and Tom McBroom(Tremblant) I don't think anyone ever gets hired to work here. Graham Cooke gets all the jobs!! I swear, if I see another Cooke course open in Montreal I might just die. He probbaly has 25 to 30 courses in the greater Montreal area, it's just sick. Tell Mr. Whitman to come this way  ;D
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Robert Thompson on January 29, 2004, 07:56:27 PM
Actually, Tom Fazio has been hired to work on Gord Stollery's new course in Montreal (Gord is the owner of Angus Glen near Toronto.) The course is being developed to host the Canadian Open....

Like Carrick and McBroom have done too much in Toronto, Huxam and Cooke have done too much work in the Montreal area.

Nice to mix it up some.

Robert
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Jeff_Mingay on January 29, 2004, 08:04:04 PM
You're right Matt, Quebec's in need of some diversity. Find a developer, resort owner or club in the province to hire Rod, and trust me, he'll be there, anxious to get started!
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Matt Kardash on January 29, 2004, 09:37:29 PM
Robert,
Ya i know about the Fazio course, it might have been site specific amnesia.

Jeff,
Actually you don't want to come here, all the land in Montreal is flat and boring. If only you could convince the government to turn that giant park on Mount Royal into a golf course.  ;D
Or come renovate ours, as the club seems to be destroying anything that was once good about it. However me being 21 and all, I dont think i have much pull  :(
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Robert Thompson on January 29, 2004, 11:04:11 PM
Matt: Tried sending you an IM, without luck. What club are you playing at in Montreal?

R
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Philippe Binette on January 30, 2004, 05:06:02 PM
can you name another one

I know Fazio will work on the RCGA National, Couples worked at Tremblant...

Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Robert Thompson on January 30, 2004, 05:14:12 PM
Phillipe: I agree there are few architects working in Quebec aside from Cooke. Ian Andrew, one of Carrick's lead guys, does a lot of reno work there. Not sure why Carrick and Mcbroom haven't done more.... any thoughts?

Robert
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Jeff_Mingay on January 30, 2004, 05:39:14 PM
McBroom just worked on Mount Bruno, right. Haven't seen the finished product, but I pray it's not Ottawa Hunt Part II.

I take comfort though, McBroom's website states that Willie Park, Jr. would have approved of his work at Mount Bruno were he alove today. (Someone in McBroom's office must have a direct line to Heaven!)
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Robert Thompson on January 30, 2004, 05:47:30 PM
Jeff: I actually thought Tom's work at Bruno was subtle -- removed a lot of trees and didn't appear to tinker with the greens. It is a terrific course -- would like to play it again in order to evaluate it.

The line about Park approving is interesting -- we should start a thread about the craziest stuff architects have boasted about. How many times have some architects talked about working, "on the best piece of land I've ever seen"?

Robert
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Matt Kardash on January 30, 2004, 07:20:07 PM
Robert, I actually got your IM and replied
Title: Re:Manoir Richelieu
Post by: Jeff_Mingay on January 31, 2004, 09:05:20 AM
Your report on Mount Bruno is encouraging, Rob. I'd really like to see the course, post-McBroom, someday.

As for silly things golf architects have said, claiming Willie Park Jr. would have approved of the modernization-type work you've done at two of his original designs ranks up there.

Ottawa Hunt is... geez, I'll shut up  :-X