"Golf architecture can rightly be referred to as one of the higher art forms man has attempted to undertake. Consider the scale of its very proportions, its lasting contributions on such vast canvasses, and what it has meant to the lives of so many. As in any review of art, there are some examples which are timeless and are considered "classical". Captain Georce C. Thomas, Jr.'s works are among these masterpieces, and as such, are certain to live on and on."

Thomas's views and opinions are always at the forefront of my mind as well as my architecture partner Bill Coore's whenever we are lucky enough to be involved in any phase of golf architecture. Simply put, the message is sound and it will last." Ben Crenshaw 1996 from The Captain, by Geoff Shackelford about George Thomas.

Aerials of our golf course, designed by George Thomas and Billy Bell in the late 1920s, taken in 1930 and 2003 were used to create these hole by hole comparisons (click on holes above). In reviewing these aerials as we consider possible changes to strengthen and restore the golf course, some questions and considerations come to mind.

First is the impact of technology on the golf course. Stanford was a very long course in 1930 and is now considered average in length at best. It is estimated that in the 1930s after the course was built that top players could carry the ball about 210 yards and with the harder fairways in those days you'd expect the ball to roll to about 250 yards. Today, top male players can easily carry the ball 280 yards resulting with roll in a 310 yard drive. It's useful to note that top women players today will carry the ball 230 with roll to 270. These yardages for men are marked on the aerials for all par 4s and 5s.

Second is the advisory committee's strong belief that the original Thomas-Bell design approach should be retained when considering future changes and that the course be always playable by the average golfer. Among the finest golf architects in the world, Thomas-Bell designs have stood the test of time, including their highly acclaimed works at Riviera, Bel-Air, LA CC North and Stanford. Above all, Thomas-Bell courses were known for their shot-making values, their unique bunkering and for the variation in their greens. The side-by-side aerials show where changes have taken place from the original to today.

1. Fairway bunkering on 1, 2 (black tee only), 5, 9, 10, 13 and 16 are now not in play as originally designed.
2. A careful analysis of how the course plays now for women needs to be made in light of technology changes and our various tee boxes.
3. While many of the holes have become easier for the low handicapper, technology has toughened a number of holes for the average golfer, bringing more bunkers into play.
4. A number of green-side bunkers have been either added or deleted (2, 8, 12, 16 and 17).
5. A number of green-side bunkers have moved further from the greens (1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 12 and 13).
6. The new championship tee boxes on 2 and 7 have clearly helped address the length issue.
7. Strategic trees at greens have been lost on holes 6, 7, 9 and 18.
8. A redo of 16 seems clearly in need e.g. replacing the creek and considering removing right trees 100-120 yards from the green.
9. Considerations might be made to add new tees, or move greens on holes 1 (green), 10 (tee), 16 (tee), 17 (tee) and 18 (tee).
10. In some cases our greens have enlarged, especially in the fronts of some greens. With some of the shorter holes (e.g. 8, 11, 15), the large greens have lessened strategic shot-making values.
11. Technology likely has improved the strategic shot-making values for our short par 4 holes 11 and 15. The longest hitters now have many tee shot choices to make including trying to drive the greens.

Bob Stevens
Stanford golf member. Send questions or comments to Bob Stevens at bob@stanfordmensgolf.org