Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on August 17, 2001, 06:25:00 AM
Rest in peace Merion Golf Club.
Post by: George_Bahto on August 17, 2001, 07:02:00 AM
Post by: Gary Sherman on August 17, 2001, 07:10:00 AM
It would be great if you have some original photos and show the comparison. I looked at Geoff's from "The Golden Age..", and I can't believe this interpretation.
Post by: BarnyF on August 17, 2001, 07:19:00 AM
The one thing that is right about your picture is that you are in your car looking out. If you were a member of Merion would you suddenly quit acting so childish. You are not shitting on their parade, you only mess yourself.
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 17, 2001, 07:27:00 AM
As I mentioned at the end of the last discussion, I have said all I can on this issue. Let others form their own opinions.
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 17, 2001, 07:31:00 AM
That being said, how is this different from a golf publication taking aerial pictures of the ongoing changes at ANGC?
We're talking about significant changes at courses that are ranked in the top 10 in the world? Why wouldn't people interested in architecture want to see the results?
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on August 17, 2001, 08:16:00 PM
Lets not make this about me, lets make it about what is in composition of the pictures.
Lets hear your opinion. What do you think of this bunker work?
I can't even begin to think that the members and committee members of Merion actually accept this as a suitable substitute for anything in 1930 let alone the historically evolved sand pits known as the "White Faces."
(Better put, you can insult me all you want, but to me nothing is more insulting then this debacle of one of the World's Great Golfing Gems.)
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on August 17, 2001, 08:22:00 PM
Another thing, is I'm hoping that maybe some members at Oakmont are lurking and take notice. Maybe then they will come to their senses and hire Tom Doak, instead of settling themselves to this dreck.
Post by: kilfara on August 17, 2001, 08:36:00 PM
Cheers,
Darren
(Tommy - I'm inclined to agree with your viewpoint, but all of this "Tom Fazio = Satan Incarnate" nonsense is really beneath you....)
Post by: TEPaul on August 17, 2001, 08:47:00 PM
As I've said before, I'm fascinated by some of your posts but only because of the way you construct them and the off-beat and interesting way you write. They are fun to read although I really can't remember you ever saying much interesting about golf architecture; actually I can't remember you saying much specifically about golf architecture at all. Your posts seem to be off-beat takes on the specific opinions of others on golf architecture.
Maybe it's time now you get off of here and go back to surfing the Internet in search of whatever it was you were looking for before you happened on this golf architectural web-site---maybe something like a web-site for creative writing.
Post by: Tim_Weiman on August 17, 2001, 08:49:00 PM
Tommy Naccarato can tell you that I'm not a real fan of "Fazio bashing".
But, I think Tommy is right. Why make this about Tommy? The issue is the quality of the work being done on one of the world's great courses.
Can you share with us what you really think? Do you think the work done at Merion makes sense? If you do, by all means, speak up and tell us why.
Post by: Da Vinci on August 17, 2001, 08:54:00 PM
Oh Mona!
Post by: ForkaB on August 17, 2001, 09:20:00 AM
Please reconsider your last post. The last thing we need to do on this forum is to try to drive away people who have a fresh viewpoint on things, even if they express themselves from time to time in a manner which might be esoteric or even offend some of us. I think that Barny is "here" because he knows quite a bit about golf and is interested in participating and starting conversations on that topic.
Barny
While your post might have breached the special "netiquette" of this site, it had meaning. However, it is not the first nor the last time that ad hominem attacks have been made on other participants of this DG. Hang in there, and do let us know more from where and whence you cometh.
Darren
I fully support your point that "Fazio-bashing" should be beneath us.
Tommy N
I very much respect your opinions and your (and that of Mike C, et. al. who know it, which I do not) love for Merion. However, as a long-distance observer, how do resolve your contempt for the images you have seen with the generally positive (or at least conflicting) things that have been said about a lot of the restoration by those on the ground--i.e. Tom Paul's comments after the Wilson?
All
Just because Fazio might have said things in his book that wound us due to our affection for the oldies but goodies of GCA, that does not necessarily mean that he is some sort of latter day Viking raider out to rape and pillage all the sacred and virgin objects that he sees. He has built a lot of very good golf courses. The people at Merion, AGNC, Oakmont, etc. are not complete dummies. If they were, they would hire Nicklaus or Gary Player to oversee their restorations/improvements. I very, very, very, very much doubt that Mr. Greenwood and the greens committee and the membership of Merion chose deliberately to vandalize their course, nor do I think they beleive now that they have. Some of us do. That's just our opinion. And, as Signore Mucci says, we may well be wrong.
Rich
Post by: Dr Nipantuck on August 17, 2001, 09:33:00 AM
Post by: John_Conley on August 17, 2001, 09:43:00 AM
When a guy has command of a system, sticks to it, enjoys a reputation as the best in his field, and gets hired by nearly everyone - doesn't it follow that he will continue doing what he's been doing?
A member of an old course may be very impressed by high-profile (the only jobs Fazio takes, a "high-class" problem) new courses that are markedly different than old classics. He may misplace his feelings for newer, playable, pretty, well-maintained, and generally enjoyable courses toward only Fazio instead of the genre.
Post by: David Wigler on August 17, 2001, 09:47:00 AM
Generally I agree with most of what you write but I could not disagree more this time. Please, Please, Please, Tommy bash away. I have never had the privilege of playing ANGC or Merion and now I never will. These so called protectors of the game are destroying historical landmarks for nothing more important than vanity and preserving arbitrary figures like par. How can anyone who truly has a passion about golf not want to scream as loud as possible "Stop it you rich, arrogant, asses. Leave your courses alone for the enjoyment of future generations." Merion and ANGC are not meant to be monuments to their living members, they are treasures to be shared long after the Hootie's and Buddy's of the world have died. So please Tommy, bash some more. Who knows, maybe some lurker will prevent the destruction of another classic......Ooop's, did I just blow any chance of every being invited to ANGC or Merion.
Post by: TEPaul on August 17, 2001, 09:48:00 AM
OK, I will reconsider my last post to BarnyF--but only if he starts to talk more about golf architecture! You know, things like his own opinion of things to do with architecture not just what a jerk someone else is because that person happens to have a strong opinion.
Post by: TEPaul on August 17, 2001, 10:02:00 AM
All BarnyF said was TommyN was a child to say what he says. He should tell him why he feels that way regarding the architecture of it all. Maybe BarnyF has some big thing about photos taken out of car windows of a private golf course, but that's meaningless on here!
Post by: ForkaB on August 17, 2001, 10:06:00 AM
David
I'm not sure if I agree with myself most of the time so I'm glad somebody does! I think I hear what you are saying, but one of my points of view is that I am very, very glad that I am playing today, with today's equipment on today's courses rather than with featheries and gutties and hickory shafts on 5000 yards scruffy courses as my great grandparents did at the turn of the last century. I don't fear the future and I do not think that anybody could do anything to Merion of AGNC that would take away my pleasure in playing those courses, regardless of what they looked like in the 1930's or even last year.
Tom P
Thanks for the reply. I've been called or implied to be a jerk enough on this site, and probably called or implied that somebody else was a jerk to know that this sort of thing happens in the heat of "battle." We shouldn't do, but we do, and we get over it.
Post by: Matt_Ward on August 17, 2001, 10:17:00 AM
Great thread and kudos for taking the pictures.
Barney reminds me of the people who blamed Watergate on the reporters Woodward and Bernstein. It's time to look at the real culprits -- club leadership that is woefully ignorant of it's club pedigree and a crass attempt by an architect intent on forging his signature (whatever that is) on a treasure in American golf.
A clear shame ...
Post by: aclayman on August 17, 2001, 10:17:00 AM
I "got it" right off. Those bunkers look like a joke or more sucsincly put: They do not look like they belong on some "National Treasure" that heretofore was the impression I've been absorbing on GCA.com.
And Tommy, without even having read those books you recomended I feel what they probably say. Especially now, after having seen this.
Personally, I hope the members are happy. Afterall, bedfellows and all.
Post by: Brian Phillips on August 17, 2001, 10:50:00 AM
You know how I feel about your bashing but this time I think you are right to voice your opinion.
I feel sorry for Merion but as someone said if so many think Fazio is good then maybe we are all wrong about architecture. I hope not. I would love to get everyone on this site together and try to design our own course.
Last week I showed one of my designs to a controller at another site and he asked why do you have bunkers in the middle of the fairway? WHT NOT?
Tom Paul,
Harsh words from a man who normally is so good with his words. Were you in a rush? At least Barny is here, that's the most important thing..
Post by: John_Conley on August 17, 2001, 11:02:00 AM
Isn't it great that this game we love isn't played on a standard surface like tennis or (for the most critical dimensions ) baseball?
We'd have nothing to talk about but the speed of the greens!
Post by: ForkaB on August 17, 2001, 11:14:00 AM
I have never been an "expert" at anything, including tennis. I do know, however, that the 4 tennis "majors" are played on 3 very different surfaces--hard court (US and Australia), clay (French) and grass Wimbledon). They are so different that it is hard to conceive of Pete Sampras winning the French or Gustavo Kuerten winning Wimbledon, whereas Tiger should be the clear favorite (regardless of how badly he has been playing today) on any golf course, of any kind, anywhere in the world.
And yet, you are right....there is much more variety between two single golf shots than there is between any two tennis courts in the world........
Vive les differences!
Post by: John_Conley on August 17, 2001, 11:22:00 AM
I am no expert on the game of golf, but do have special talents and am self-proclaimed to be the world's greatest lover.
GCA just offers a better board!
Post by: peter_p on August 17, 2001, 12:35:00 PM
At least he didn't put a waterfall in the creek on the 5th
Post by: BarnyF on August 17, 2001, 02:32:00 PM
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 17, 2001, 02:44:00 PM
BarneyF,
Please, please, please tell us what you think of the bunkers from an architectural and aesthetic perspective.
Yukon Cornelius spent his time in the fruitless pursuit of material wealth and even the Abominable one turned out to be quite the misunderstood chap, so perhaps you can work that strange dichotomy into your assessment, as well.
Stick around...you're the only person who I think was ever able to piss off the ever-optimistic Tom Paul (which takes A LOT!), so perhaps your presence will at least silence those mysterious, anonymous critics of this site who claim we simply spend our time happily agreeing and backslapping with ourselves.
Post by: jglenn on August 17, 2001, 03:39:00 PM
At any rate, not wishing the stir the pot, I don't think that the bunker shown on the top picture merits such comments as "are you kidding?????????"
For one thing, these bunkers are certainly not typical Fazio bunkers, which means that he and his staff obviously researched what they thought the Merion bunkers may have looked like many years ago, and tried to restore them, rather than impose their own style onto the course.
In fact, these bunkers are not typical of anything modern at all, which would certainly go a way to explaining why our initial reaction to this work would be puzzlement and shock.
Rather, these bunkers seem to be typical of shaping that one would do if one wanted a powerful bunker, but did not have much earthmoving capacity. Deep, with sharp edges, and rather crude earthworks to support the feature.
Although I have not personnaly seen Merion's bunkers back in the Golden Age - and I doubt any here have either - I would not be surprised if many "Golden Age" bunkers had common caracteristics with what was done here.
That pictures gives it quite a different "look", doesn't it?
In fact, looking at the top picture (of Merion) on page 87 (Merion's 9th hole) in Thomas's "Golf Architecture in America", I find that the edging of the furthest bunker on the left side to be very similar to what Fazio's team has done.
While there is obviously a prejudice against Fazio in here, I believe it is only fair that we find out WHY that bunker was built like that before jumping to any conclusions.
Cheers,
Post by: Mike O'Neill on August 17, 2001, 04:01:00 PM
I think it is good for you to stick around. You're post regarding the musical, although it lacked meter and one could not dance to it, did at least shine a little sunlight on my home state of Nebraska. For that I am pleased.
Just give us a little golf architecture whenever you can so that Ran does not have to delete your threads. So far, so good.
Tommy, I have never been to Merion I'm sorry to say, but from looking at the photo on page 70 of Geoff's Golden Age book, it looks like those bunkers and the first photo are in the same ball park. I can even find the bunker in the photo with the golfers walking and it looks close to the shape of the old bunker shown on page 68 of Geoff's book middle of the page. I must assume that what was there last year must be significantly better than what has currently been put in place by Fazio.
Signed,
Never been there
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 17, 2001, 04:59:00 PM
Mike O'Neill,
The bunker in the second picture is of the second hole, and the corresponding picture in Geoff's book shows that bunker on the far left side middle, just under what looks like a little damage to the picture. Do you really see all the fussy little, clean-edge nooks and crannies in the aerial?
Similarly, the picture of the 12th in Geoff's book...well, perhaps that is what someone should do. Take a picture of that same scene as it exists post-recreation, and then let's see how close they are. I've seen that bunker firsthand, and think a picture might be illuminating.
I do know that I need eyeglasses, but...
Jeremy,
Just so you know, the work on the bunkers WAS done using modern equipment and not the handwork you claim they look like. Also, the bunker is the one that exists on the right-hand side of the 14th fairway, and the orientation is from the left side. In other words, the exit out of that bunker towards the green is to the left. That fact might provide a different impression to your impression of the depth and playability. Anyone who ever drove up Golf House Road would have remembered that bunker as being one of those with love grass, cut into the hillside. It never had the kind of mouding that exists post-Fazio.
I like your black and white photo idea, but it clearly masks the fact that a different, darker shade of grass (bluegrass) was used on the bunker surrounds that really doesn't blend at all with the rest of the course. What the thick grass DOES do however, is provide a consistency and uniformity that hadn't existed in the previous bunker surrounds.
Some applaud that, while others cringe.
Post by: Mike O'Neill on August 17, 2001, 05:35:00 PM
It is difficult to see. There is at least some edginess to the picture on page 68. Certainly that exists in the picture on page 70. I don't want to pretend to have an opinion on this. I haven't been there. I'm more or less asking for clarification.
Post by: T_MacWood on August 17, 2001, 07:24:00 PM
The only thing those bunkers have in common with with Cuscowila is an irregular outline, they lack any three demensional interest or natural randomness. They'd look great at AAC, but they are replacing the irreplaceable.
And you are offended by Tommy's comments, Fazio=Satan incarnate? When was that said, a year ago? On the other hand you entertain the idea of defacing one of the world's great golf courses.
Since when is posting a crime scene photo considered Fazio bashing?
BarneyF
I'd also write in criptic riddles if I were stuck in Southern Illinois and had to choose between a cow pasture/golf course and befriending a sheep. It must be a particularly difficult time to be a Fazio apolgist.
Jeremy
I'm not surprised by your opinion, the bunkering is very similar to Cooke's new work. Thanks for explaining the importance of how the bunker plays, I'm sure Hugh Wilson will appreciate your appreciation of his placement of the bunker. An architect who says the look doesn't matter is an engineer.
John Connely
Thank you for explaining the rational for this latest crime and exploring Rich Goodale's tennis game. How did you like Regetta Bay?
Post by: Willie_Dow on August 17, 2001, 07:57:00 PM
Concur with your observation that this old bunker, being a greenside bunker. It is somewhat typical of that era.
But would you put this as a fairway bunker?
This is everywhere!
Post by: Robin Hood on August 17, 2001, 11:40:00 PM
Talking about "Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor", I may have gone too far this time!
Oh Friah, do stop it ...
Post by: TEPaul on August 18, 2001, 01:38:00 AM
Your photographic observations and questions are really good ones and if properly and very accurately pursued can yield some interesting answers, in my opinion!
At the very least, in an architectural sense, you're on the right track, you're looking at the right material and this is why Golfclubatlas can often be a very valuable place for those interested in doing good research and doing good restorations.
Geoff's book alone can yield some interesting answers about the bunkering at Merion, and about their evolution. And I'm certain that Merion, the golf club, and its green committee has many more old aerials to analyze.
All this research material is great stuff and armed it with it is the way to go for a golf club trying to do some good restoration (of bunkers).
But having the material and analyzing it correctly is important as hell too! I think I agree with you that the photo above does look similar to SOME of the photos you see in Geoff's book, particularly the aerial photo of Merion on p. 68. I might even say that the bunker on this thread above (new bunker) would look better than any of the bunkers on p. 68 if it was photographed from about 2000ft (as was p. 68).
But then you have to look at the date of the photo on p. 68. It says 1924! And further you should be darn sure (for accurate evolutionary evaluation) that the date on the photo is correct! There are simple ballpark ways of doing that like looking at the size of surrounding trees and such.
Now, go to the photo on p. 68 in Geoff's book and concentrate on the right greenside bunker on hole #12. You will see that in the photo on p. 68 that particular bunker is quite simplistic in its shape and maturation and detail and you can detect just the beginnings of a cape on the fairway side.
Again, I might say that if the new bunker on that hole was photographed from about 2000ft. (as was the one on p. 68) that the new one (Fazio's) might even look better.
Now go to the photo on p. 70 of Geoff's book and look at the differences between it and the photo on p. 68 and the new Fazio bunker that is there now. You will see that the photo on p. 70 shows a bunker that has matured beautifully and has likely had its shape and grasses carefully tended to over a period of years (from the photo on p. 68) by Joe Valentine. The detailing on p. 70 is beautiful and most likely somewhat evolutionary. Note too how significantly the cape has grown. Why and how do you think that was?
You might further notice that the caption to the photo on p. 70 mentions the year 1924 again. That might lead someone to assume that the photos on p. 68 and P. 70 are the same year. You can tell they aren't the same year by analyzing the size of the trees behind the green and on the other side of Ardmore Ave, and if you want to get crazy you can even note the difference in the telephone polls on Ardmore Ave. behind the green). It might even lead someone to assume that since they are same year that Fazio should use either one. Let's just say that he uses the one on p. 68 to copy. Would that be a mistake, or what, if you are really truthful and discriminating about which bunker really looks the best?
Now go back to the photo on p. 70 and tell me, in your professional opinion, if a bunker that looks like that can be done (restored) using primarily machinery. And then look again at the new bunker above and tell me, in your professional opinion, if that bunker can be created using primarily machinery. I can tell you that I think the latter can, because I'm quite certain that it just was.
You might even conclude that the new bunkers by Fazio need the time to mature and grow in their evolutionary detail like the differences between p. 68 and p. 70. That might very well be true. But I think then that you have to seriously consider if that can really happen with bunkers that are machine made (new ones) and those that were not (p. 68 originals were primarily handmade). Can they end up really looking like they are in the same ballpark (except on aerials from 2000ft)? You can also see that the new bunkers (above) have a far more rounded, puffy and upholstered look to them (the result of machine creation) than the ones on p. 68 or 70 ever had. And to get even deeper into it you can see then that there may be a difference in what some people call three dimensionality and two dimensionality between the one on p. 70 compared to p. 68 and the new one.
I believe you're on the right track in what you ask and I think that these questions make up most of what's at issue here between some people.
So, all of this leads some people to wonder and to ask if Merion got what they wanted in this project. Because if, for some reason, they feel that they did not get what they wanted then obviously they are going to conclude that something went wrong somehow--or worst of all it might lead them to conclude that maybe they shouldn't have ever touched those old evolutionary surrounds in the first place.
I have no real idea what Merion thinks about what they've now got except that quite a few members (but not all) seem pleased with them. I certainly hope that they are pleased with them ultimately because the work is done now and afterall, it is their golf course, and no one elses!
I think I did say a while ago that I wouldn't talk anymore on the Internet about the Merion bunker project. I guess I didn't exactly stick to that but I didn't post this to say anything at all about the Merion bunker project. I posted it only because I'm impressed by the questions and observations of Jeremy Glenn and Mike O'Neill and Mike Cirba. I think those questions and observations are valuable generally and shows how good some of the detailed architectural questions and discussions can get on golfclubatlas. So this post doesn't really apply to Merion, it applies to any golf course interested in doing really good restoration and the people interested in doing it, like my own golf course or maybe even Oakmont.
Post by: TEPaul on August 18, 2001, 02:08:00 AM
There you go again, man! You fascinate me! The Duke of Wellington, Santa, Burl Ives and Barry Manilow's Mandy!?! If all that has one single thing to do with golf architecture, how about cluing us all in?
Are you sure you weren't looking for a site on creative writing or art or literature? I'll be glad to search the web for you if you were.
But who am I to talk? Fireball Roberts definitely was less connected to golf architecture than Mandy, I'm sure! It's a little hazy now but I do recall that there once was some connection between Mandy and Arnie!
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 18, 2001, 05:32:00 AM
I think you hit it right on the head with your description of the work as "rounded, puffy and upholstered". That's EXACTLY it.
Makes one wonder how many rounded, puffy, and upholstered things are found in nature....perhaps a Himalayan Cat.
I'm also no longer talking about Merion, but I have to ask this question of all those folks who argue that the bunkers are just going to erode and evolve naturally once again over time.
When wall to wall synthetic bunker woll defines the perimeter of the bunker at its foundation, how is that going to erode?
The bluegrass sod surrounds has been literally stapled into place, as well. These bunkers were not built to evolve. They were built to look just as synthetic and upholstered in 50 years as they do today.
Astroturf would evolve quicker.
That information was provided as general info for any clubs considering doing bunker revision or recreation to new, modern, madder methods.
Post by: Slag_Bandoon on August 18, 2001, 05:36:00 AM
Jeremy, Ditto on how it 'plays' as opposed to how it 'looks' perspective.
BarnyF, Enigmatic meanderings only bewilder. I think I get your intention of using more questions to take us somewhere but I have a hard time locating the points. Ever been to http://www.spoonbill.org ? Pure obscure poetic madness.
A foray there might bring you back here realizing that these GCAgents are real people with real interests in golf architecture and its periphery and not playing a game of 'Battleship' with misdirection plays and verbal camoflage. I believe most of them are attempting to be as clear as possible with their diverse beliefs. Hang 'round and teach us yours. I'll try to be more smarter.
Post by: TEPaul on August 18, 2001, 06:49:00 AM
It appears that many people and possibly clubs and green committees assume that if you do one you have to do the other. It might be becoming clear that is not necessarily so. Particularly if you're out to preserve something quite complex like the rugged evolutionary look of bunkers like Merion's. As mentioned before, Merion's bunkers are famous as could be but there are plenty around that are very similar in look to them.
Although I'm learning a ton, I'm no professional, but I'm sure some of them on here could comment on that very specifically. So the danger may be the assumption that if you do one thing or anything you have to do it all. And further, another dangerous assumption is that if you do it all any architect and contractor is going to give you exactly what you were hoping for. It seems pretty clear by now that because of vastly differing methods of construction, style, whatever, that is something that cannot be assumed.
A really good reporter called me who is apparently going to do an article on this subject. This reporter is good and does good research for his articles. He didn't ask for my opinion specifically (which I might keep to myself anyway until sometime in the future-and I told him that), he asked if I could explain to him why there is all this furor on Golfclubatlas. I think I've been around here long enough to probably do that without being unfair or particularly critical of anyone.
In my opinion now, this should get away from simple subjectivity (and outright bashing and finger pointing) and start to concentrate on simple facts, or at least if there are any!
This reporter, who does know his golf, did not seem aware at first that there even could be distinct parts to bunker restorations (as cited above). I hope I'm right that there are and await the opinions of some of the good professionals and others on here. If I'm wrong about that, then I am and my mistake!
Some may try to kill me for even talking to him and mentioning these things, but what the hell, I'm not trying to bash anybody at all, just trying to get to the bottom of some architectural facts and questions. That's all any of us on here or elsewhere should be trying to do, in my opinion.
And I should say again that through all this furor, Merion and particularly its Green Chairman has been extremely hospitable, open and forthcoming with me. About three years ago I got to know him because of this and I distinctly remember saying to him that given the large membership and likely the diverse opinions within it that there was going to be plenty of criticism to come--and further that given the fame of Merion's bunkers the world would be watching and that likely he would really be on the firing line no matter what! That redoing the bunkers of Merion was not exactly the same as redoing the bunkers at Gulph Mills. I really don't think he needed me to tell him that--he seemed well aware of the atmosphere.
So let's just see how it goes for the club and for others. Obviously no one has to wait any particular amount of time to offer opinions since although there may be specific facts involved a lot of this does boil down to subjective judgement in the end. But the facts and the architectural questions are very important to know--they are really the same questions (probably involving the same facts) that have been asked on here for a very long time.
If it turns out the way Merion wanted it then great for them. If it turns out not the way others wanted it then much has probably been learned from all this. And in the end that should be a help to others and other clubs and that should be a good thing for everyone and their understanding of the details involved in golf course architecture.
Post by: RJ_Daley on August 18, 2001, 07:03:00 AM
I'd really like to hear in some detail how Tom Doak's guys or Dave and Dan would tackle this problem. But then we can't expect them to reveal trade secrets can we. I've watched Mike O'Neil build bunkers in a different medium. But, the way he was doing it seems like more of how the originals at Merion would have been done and then evolved with maintenance by a master superintendent for years. Could we just hear some technique comments by the bunkermeisters?
Post by: RJ_Daley on August 18, 2001, 07:16:00 AM
Here is a short course on the subject. Particularly "remodleing sand bunkers" a case study on a Chandler Egan restore job.
Post by: Mike O'Neill on August 18, 2001, 07:58:00 AM
I wish I would have been there when Dan and Dave restored the bunkers at Riviera. One thing that was interesting was how they were able at times to unearth some of the original bunker edges that had been buried over the years from sand shots. Sometimes you can get lucky and discover old irrigation remnants. It can be like archeology, taking away an inch at a time. I don't see that happening with a dozer or a backhoe even. I think what you need is a short sod shovel worn down from years and years of use so that it feels right (mine has a hickory handle ), hands that are meant to get dirty fine tuning the edges and an "eye" for what is to be done. If you are going to use a backhoe or a dozer to rough something out, you need to stop short and finish up with hand work. That's true whether the bunker is new or renovated. The Merion bunkers were probably treated that way. Whether or not someone had the "eye" for what needed to be done is for someone other than myself to judge. I will say that it would take a master to get on a dozer and replicate a bunker and its surrounds without a great deal of hand work. You have to assume that you only get the subtle stuff with handraking and the like. You don't restore a famous painting with a blast from a garden hose.
Oh, to be building a bunker today!
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 18, 2001, 08:17:00 PM
Mike,
Do you think it would be possible for 120 large, complex bunkers to be "recreated" using this method in less than a year in the vagaries of northeastern weather?
Methinks the method you described was what was being done previously by Kittleman and Hanse and deemed as "too slow".
Post by: Peter Galea on August 18, 2001, 08:24:00 PM
Post by: TEPaul on August 18, 2001, 08:52:00 PM
Thank you very much! It seems like some of the answers to long sought bunker restoration technique questions are finally getting answered--at the very least the right questions are being asked.
Forget about Merion's project for the time being, my club will be doing bunker restoration soon and those are questions and answers I've very much wanted to know.
Our bunkers and their restoration may not need the care and planning that Merion's do, but still, this is very good to know because it definitely may affect not just how it's done but who you get to do it! Personally, I'm real comfortable with who we have. I've seen what they do and I have no doubt it will work well for us. But still there is never a good time to stop learning!
Post by: Brian Phillips on August 18, 2001, 09:27:00 AM
Just to give you an idea on the sort of man hours that should be put in on construction of a golf according to what my company has just built here are a few numbers to think about:
The total budget for the course is 11 million kroner which is 137000 dollars (if not mistaken) for nine holes on clay land.
We have used over 220 man hours (on rakes and weeding by hand etc) PER HOLE to try and get the finishing as good as we could. These hours are just the finishing work on bunker/green surrounds etc.
I feel it is easier to work from nothing than it is restoration...how many hours have been put in at Merion I don't know...?
Of course I could have used less manhours and my company would have made more money but now we are starting to reap the benfits as people are coming to us to build their courses and asking for the same quality as this last course. The problem now is that I have to give two prices for different finishing standards machine or hand. How often do you think the client takes the lower price!!
My finishing foreman once said to me:
'Brian, I don't give a shit what has been done up to the surface its NOW we start the real work, as the client and players only see the finish and grass and that is all they are really interested in. Give me all the men I need to give the best finsih possible'
I gave him what he needed and watched the money dissappear out of my profitmargin but result is awesome...is it worth it...Damn Right...!!
My boss asked me why I had done it...I replied that my name is on that course and being only 32 years old I still have at least 40 years to go in this business and my reputation depends on the next job.
If Fazio is as bad as Tommy says he is then WHY...WHY...WHY do clubs still use him!!!!
Can someone please tell me that.
Post by: TEPaul on August 18, 2001, 10:20:00 AM
Pretty simple really why TommyN says that about Fazio. I believe that TommyN sees a guy who probably really does have the talent and certainly does have the clients who have the money to do almost anything. So TommyN is wondering why he doesn't use that demand and fame and popularity to take some chances that may produce some really interesting and thoughtful new golf courses.
TommyN wonders why Fazio keeps on producing golf courses that cost a fortune and seem particularly geared towards producing the same photogenic aura that may be pretty as hell but curiously devoid of elemental naturalness, ruggedness etc that TommyN views as good for golf and golfers. I think he feels that Tom Fazio is sort of failing to challenge and educate today's golfer to better things about the game and its challenges when his fame and popularity just might allow him to do that.
I think TommyN thinks that golfers may have gotten sort of lazy about some of the good old things about golf and it's up to a guy like Fazio to try to inspire them back to those things and reeducate them. But instead Fazio seems into a formula which is sort of what he thinks they want now and he's certainly not into creating anything that may be controversial.
I think TommyN thinks that Fazio has no real interest or even much respect for the classic golf course and its correct and proper restoration. So he can't figure out why Fazio insists in taking on all these classic restoration jobs--and taking them on for no fee. He doesn't understand why he does that and does some jobs that aren't really true to looks and such that are original.
He probably feels that if the guy can get all these bigtime clients and restoration clients too like ANGC and such that when it comes to something like classic bunker restoration why Fazio doesn't just go find some of the best handworking bunker makers in the world. If he has these big clients and apparently all this money why doesn't he do that, thinks TommyN?
I think TommyN feels that it's because Fazio might not even understand the difference with all his access to anything or worse yet that maybe he does understand and really doesn't give a damn. I think this kind of thing just really pisses TommyN off!
So why do clubs keep hiring Tom Fazio? Because they don't know much either or worse yet for TommyN they really don't give a damn. I guess he expects a guy like Fazio, in his position, to educate golfers and since he doesn't seem to do it the whole thing is sort of a vicious cycle that never seems to end and it all frustrates TommyN.
Post by: Brian Phillips on August 18, 2001, 11:05:00 AM
Good post, that sums up what Tommy and me have discussed before about other subjects.
To everyone else,
Tommy just loves his architecture and he really does get annoyed by these guys not doing their job that's all.
And he dislikes ASGCA....
Post by: Mike_Cirba on August 18, 2001, 11:33:00 AM
I'm not sure I've heard the thinking of someone described so well in the second person. That person was thinking too and it's almost as if that person thinks what Tommy thinks too.
Too bad another Tom doesn't have many of the same thoughts because it appears he's going to be responsible for a lot of what happens to our greatest courses in the next decade or so, and thinking about that makes my head hurt. 
Post by: jim_lewis on August 18, 2001, 03:56:00 PM
Thanks for telling us what Tommy thinks of Tom Fazio. I never would have guessed.
You know, I actually agree with many of his points, given your interpretation. What impresses me about Tommy is how he has become this discussion group's leading expert on Fazio and his works without having actually seen very much of his work.
Come to think of it...How many Fazio courses have you played?
There is a lot more variety in his courses than most in this group seem to think. Generalized statements about his work have a good chance of being wrong. If you play enough of his courses, I am pretty sure you will find some you like a lot, some that are o.k. and some that you don't care for. At least, that has been my experience.
Post by: David Kelly on August 18, 2001, 04:53:00 PM
I also have a lot of trouble recalling specific holes on many of his courses. I enjoy both of his Primm courses and have played them many times but for the life of me I can only remember 3 or 4 of the 36 holes there.
Post by: TEPaul on August 18, 2001, 05:55:00 PM
You know, I really don't know how many Fazio courses I've played. I certainly can think of two--Hartfeld National and Gallaway National are two. But there may have been others before I became interested in golf architecture.
From my post about what TommyN thinks of Fazio please don't construe that I'm anti-Fazio. I've played Hartfeld a number of times in qualifiers and such and I think it's a nice golf course. Some of the holes are pretty challenging and I do like the 11th, the 12th is a pretty good short par 4 with an interesting green and it's orientation. I thought the 14th was a good par 3 particularly the left side of the green. I like the "skyline" green on #16 and I like #17 very much. #17 is a hole that really does take a certain amount of thought. And I think that Gallaway is a very good course. There are some good holes, my favorite probably being the par 3 #17. I think that hole is well designed definitely. I probably will be playing Pine Hill real soon.
I have nothing at all against Tom Fazio's designs and I don't recall saying anything negative about his designs. I really don't even know that much about his US Open redesigns and how or why some people say he may have screwed up some old original design intents or whatever.
From what I have come to learn though about restoration designers and such I really can't understand why Fazio seems to be redoing almost every US Open site and sites that the USGA may be talking to.
And I can't understand why almost everywhere you look you seem to see the combination of the USGA, Tom Fazio and MacDonald & Co.
Certainly more than Fazio, I suppose I wonder about MacDonald & Co. They seem to be everywhere and on all these old classic courses redoing their bunkers. I don't think that MacDonald & Co. are necessarily bad bunker makers, it's just that I believe I've seen others that are far better than they are, particularly the ones who really can do good handwork--something I really don't see that MacDonald & Co. does much of.
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on August 19, 2001, 11:13:00 AM
Eight Fazio courses counting Bel Air, but not counting the mess he is creating at
Riviera. (Which I have seen and I can truthfully say that I'm equally appalled.)
I have asked not make this so much about me and turn the focus to what is most important--MERION GOLF CLUB'S EAST COURSE.
While I may have chosen some less then complimentary verses to some of these members at Merion, whom I feel are responsible for this debacle, (Which more then likely insults your psyche or boundries of good taste) they have far exceeded it in their attempts at golf architecture and construction.
This is why I applaude Robert Walker's topic of opinion that specifically calls on me and seperates itself from this one. He is entitled to his opinion, and I can respect that no matter how much it may differ from my own.
Tom Paul has correctly identified, if not nailed it right-on ALL of my complaints about your beloved King Fazio. He has all of the power to do something of talent, chance, inspiration, etc. and yet choses to attack the greatest courses in the game for free with this ridiculous method of framing and accentuating man-made natural features because he wants to design more crap and charge exhorbident fees for doing it.
-If Tom Fazio wants to be so helpful to game of golf, lets see him do what Pete Dye does and design a golf course for $1.00 because he knows that it is the only way the course is going to get built for that paticular society or organization. (See Purdue and others that aren't coming to mind at this moment.)
-If Tom Fazio wants to hate classic courses because they way they were inferiorly constructed when compared to modern courses and the technology he has at his disposal today, that is fine. Just tell him to leave the great old courses alone by saying "No thanks tot he members that approach him to work on them. He has no business even being there, and there is little doubt in my mind that he knows this.
Let him design 30-40 Forest Creek's a year, just ask him to leave alone the classic courses he hates so much. This way some great golf architecture in America still exists.
Post by: Tony Ristola on November 14, 2007, 12:12:56 PM
Post by: Joe Perches on November 14, 2007, 12:28:38 PM
Post by: Jim Franklin on November 14, 2007, 12:49:12 PM
Last I checked, Merion was pretty darn good. I have no idea what Faz did there, but it is one of my favorite places anywhere. Barney's place is pretty doggone good too.
Post by: Adam Clayman on November 14, 2007, 01:25:18 PM
Plus, Mike Cirba's account.
Search the recent back pages, they are not that old.
I will say it is nice to re-read some of Barney's original posts on this board. His status as celebrity is well deserved.
Post by: Mike_Cirba on November 14, 2007, 03:13:49 PM
Dr. Katz has left the building....RUNNING. <IMG SRC="http://www.golfclubatlas.com/board/ubbhtml/smile.gif"><P>BarneyF,<P>Please, please, please tell us what you think of the bunkers from an architectural and aesthetic perspective. <P>Yukon Cornelius spent his time in the fruitless pursuit of material wealth and even the Abominable one turned out to be quite the misunderstood chap, so perhaps you can work that strange dichotomy into your assessment, as well.<P>Stick around...you're the only person who I think was ever able to piss off the ever-optimistic Tom Paul (which takes A LOT!), so perhaps your presence will at least silence those mysterious, anonymous critics of this site who claim we simply spend our time happily agreeing and backslapping with ourselves.
Hmmm...
In re-reading this vintage thread it seems I was very on-target in some areas and out-of-my-mind in others. ;)