Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: blasbe1 on November 09, 2004, 10:52:03 PM
-
Here are some pics of the ongoing work that we're doing at Seawane, figured some here would like seeing these. BTW, this is my first attempt at posting pics so if they actually appear below I'll be stunned, otherwise someone please IM me through the process.
View of 7th fairway from just beyond tee:
[lmg]www.mysticcolorlab.com_105-0525.jpg[\lmg]
close up of new fairway bunkering on right side of 7th fairway:
[lmg]www.mysticcolorlab.com_105-0527.jpg[\lmg]
close up of same:
[lmg]www.mysticcolorlab.com_105-0528.jpg[\lmg]
8th Hole in process, by digging out the bunkering all around the green we're creating more of a volcano hole effect:
[lmg]www.mysticcolorlab.com_105-0545.jpg[\lmg]
New cross bunkering on the short 500 yd 5 par about 260 yds off the tee:
[lmg]www.mysticcolorlab.com_105-0529.jpg[\lmg]
close up of same:
[lmg]www.mysticcolorlab.com_105-0530.jpg[\lmg]
new left greenside bunkering on 9:
[lmg]www.mysticcolorlab.com_105-0536.jpg[\lmg]
added bunkering from 80 yds up to the greenside on right side of 9, greenside bunkers now must be carried to a right pin location:
[lmg]www.mysticcolorlab.com_105-0533.jpg[\lmg]
New transition from 9th green to 10th tee:
[lmg]www.mysticcolorlab.com_105-0540.jpg[\lmg]
same view from tee to green:
[lmg]www.mysticcolorlab.com_105-0541.jpg[\lmg]
view from behind 9 green exposes the new angles of play into 9 (it used to be a runway) second shots for big hitters must now carry all the way home or be played with a bit of a cut:
[lmg]www.mysticcolorlab.com_105-0542.jpg[\lmg]
If there are no photos above I need a little help.
JKB
-
BTW,
I think I followed Geoff Childs directions to the letter ???
-
Jason, the main problem is that you are probably not capturing the entire URL address of the photo pages. Right click on the photo, click "properties" and copy the Address (URL), which sometimes, in the case of longer URLs, requires pulling downward or upward on the mouse to reveal more of the URL.
-
I'll try this one:
View of 7th fairway from just beyond tee:
[lmg]http://www.mysticcolorlab.com/slideshow/AlbumID=16348439/PictureID=363966581/t_=9574515[\lmg]
-
Last try:
[lmg]www.mysticcolorlab.com/slideshow/AlbumID=16348439/PictureID=363966581/t_=9574515.jpg[\lmg
-
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Technology makes my life soooooo much easier >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
After you put the entire URL in after the first bracket, in the end bracket, use a forward slash / rather than the back slash \
[img]http://Entire URL[/im] Note: I didn't put the final g in the last bracket so that a box with a red x wouldn't appear. If you subsequently delete the photo from your storage area, a box with a red x will appear on GCA
Best to use preview button before the post button. Looks like Craig tought me better than Geoff tought you ;) Either that or I learned my lesson better ;D
-
1. It is "img" not lmg
2. I am not sure you have the right address. Call me.
-
Let's try this time:
Here are some pics of the ongoing work that we're doing at Seawane, figured some here would like seeing these. BTW, this is my first attempt at posting pics so if they actually appear below I'll be stunned, otherwise someone please IM me through the process.
View of 7th fairway from just beyond tee:
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/34232%3B%3A323232%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E232367%3A4532%3C3ot1lsi)
close up of new fairway bunkering on right side of 7th fairway:
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/34232%3B%3A323232%7Ffp64%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E232367%3A454964ot1lsi)
close up of same:
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/34232%3B%3A323232%7Ffp64%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E232367%3A454969ot1lsi)
8th Hole in process, by digging out the bunkering all around the green we're creating a bit of a volcano hole effect:
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/34232%3B%3A323232%7Ffp63%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E232367%3A457437ot1lsi)
New cross bunkering on the short 500 yd 5 par about 260 yds off the tee:
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/34232%3B%3A323232%7Ffp64%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E232367%3A454979ot1lsi)
close up of same:
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/34232%3B%3A323232%7Ffp64%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E232367%3A454987ot1lsi)
new left greenside bunkering on 9:
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/34232%3B%3A323232%7Ffp63%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E232367%3A4549%3B3ot1lsi)
added bunkering from 80 yds up to the greenside on right side of 9, greenside bunkers now must be carried to a right pin location:
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/34232%3B%3A323232%7Ffp63%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E232367%3A4549%3A5ot1lsi)
New transition from 9th green to 10th tee:
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/34232%3B%3A323232%7Ffp58%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E232367%3A4549%3B8ot1lsi)
same view from tee to green:
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/34232%3B%3A323232%7Ffp63%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E232367%3A4573%3C6ot1lsi)
view from behind 9 green exposes the new angles of play into 9 (it used to be a runway) second shots for big hitters must now carry all the way home or be played with a bit of a cut:
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/34232%3B%3A323232%7Ffp64%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E232367%3A457442ot1lsi)
JKB
-
Jason
Do you have any photos of any of the finished work? I think a few would put into context some of the open vistas created by removing 6000 trees and recreating Dev Emmet's intent for a links-like course with his mounding and cross bunkering.
-
Jason,
I can't wait to come play Seawane with you next year.I love the classic,older,quirky architecture of many of the courses down on the south shore.Some of those dunes look a bit like -I dare not say it-Good thing the previous architect's last name was Emmet-It does seem some architects are more equal than others.
-
Who is the doing all of the work at Sewane? Is it all in-house or contracted out? I played Sewane 2 years ago. Good layout. Favorite hole is 18, great greenside bunker on the right-hand side, if I can remember correctly. One course to watch out for on the south shore is The Woodmere Club. They are doing some renovations aswell.
Chris Munoz
-
Geoff:
I don't have any but I'll get down there early next week and then post some.
Chris:
It's mostly done inhouse with a very talented shaper that's been contracted from the outside. All those folks in the photos are inhouse people.
-
think a few would put into context some of the open vistas created by removing 6000 trees and recreating Dev Emmet's intent for a links-like course with his mounding and cross bunkering.
Actually, Geoff, in the last few weeks we cleared out a bunch of brush and overgrowth from behind the 9th green and now, from parts of the 9th hole you can see straight down to the 10th green. This is fairly well shown in the photo below with all the guys and two work carts in the leftside of the picture. In that photo the 9th green sits right infront of the tree in the right side of the picture. The bunkering in the distance is #10.
I'll take different photos, however, to better capture what we've opened up.
For those who haven't seen the course recently, keep in mind that it really doesn't come to life until June when all the fescue is up. In addition to clearly a ton of trees we've done a ton of grass work.
-
Jason:
It was my understanding that the work at Seawane involved the services of Stephen Kay.
Is that true?
If so -- what was it that he provided -- specifically?
Many thanks ...
-
Matt, I sent you an IM.
-
Jason, thank you for posting.
I apologise for my lack of knowledge here regarding this course, but could you give us some information on it for instance: where is it? when was it built? and was the course kept in play in a reduced format during this renovation or were temporary greens used?
Cheers
James
-
James
Seawane is right up on the water in Hewlett Harbor on Long Island. My guess is that it was Dev Emmet's follow up to Garden City and meant to be his Long Island Links. He did a good job as have the members who are responsible for the work to put it back in that state. But for a few areas like the tee shot on #1, they have opened up all the vistas and reinstated mounding, crossbunkers and greenside hazards that are most impressive. In addition, the greens themselves have many little (and not so little) puffs, mounds, and slopes that complicate attaining a good score. It is a most impressive place and I hope to see it again when all the holes are finished.
-
Jason,
Is this a restoration??????
Does the outside shaper happen to be Dave Sullivan???
-
Redanman,
Thank you for the info - are you having me on, or does it really say 5 somes not allowed? I would check, but Ive barely got enough time to write this..
Geoffrey,
Again, thanks... Im not familiar with Dev Emmets work im embarssed to say, and Ive only been to a few courses in NY mainly the Hamptons and Winged Foot -
Q. Were the cross bunkers put back in the original positions? or are they in new positons in Dev Emmets style?
....where they pushed forward to account for todays length off the tee, or were new tees placed in order to counteract this relationship?
Cheers
James
-
Jason will have more specific information but I believe that it is an "interpretive restortation". I don't think they had detailed photographic evidence of the mounding and ground features but they must have good aerials (Craig Disher- where are you).
I think they have added bunkers and mounding that is not original and in some cases it almost looks like Cassique on Kiawah Island.
The end result, however, is a striking golf course that perhaps is a tribute to Dev Emmet more then it is a faithful restoration.
-
Interpretive, tribute design work. Wow. I guess as long as you are one of the blessed GCA architects on this site you can do anything and call it anything and everyone else here will nod thier approval.
Again, is the talented outside shaper Dave Sullivan?
-
Kelly,
Jason is at Cuscowilla this weekend so I don't think he will be able to answer that until around monday.
Steven Kay I believe was the consulting architect there, would you refer to him as one of the "blessed GCA architects on this site"? I wouldn't neccesarily say that. Also by talking to Jason he mentioned that while Kay reccommended a lot of stuff, the members pretty much did what they wanted to do, and Kay worked with him that way.
I think what this proves is that if the course turns out to be a success its not a matter of it being a faithful restoration or not.
Jason
-
Jason,
This site lives off the work of dead architects, and few blessed living ones, and yes I would put Steven Kay in there because Brad Klein, who is highly regarded by the faithful on this site praised Steven for the work on this course, so while I agree with your last statement to some extent, I am amazed that a Dev Emmitt course that is undergoing an interpretive, tribute renovation is being praised on this site. I doubt seriously that many here would agree that you can do what you please at any course and as long as the course reamins viable so be it.
But, that is not what I wanted to focus on, I want to know if the gifted shaper Jason failed to name is Dave Sullivan.
-
Kelly
I went to Seawane without ever knowing if Brad had been there. I loved it and you can now see it in Ran's Next 50 to play list. In fact, I sent Brad a message afterwards telling him to go see it. Go play the course and then make a judgement of your own based on some substance. Don't come here and make judgements based on some stupid terms like restoration, interpretive restoration, sensitive restoration or renovation. That's silly. Some courses have data that permit restoration if and when the membership cares to undertake such a project. Other courses take a different path. I think Dev Emmet would be pleased with what he sees today on the ground at Seawane but that's just my one opinion and I'm only a stupid GW rater at that.
Stephen Kay is hardly ever spoken of on this site. I think he butchered Rockaway Hunting Club, butchered a quaint Dev Emmet course owned by my town (Lake Isle) yet did a good job with some of his original work.
-
Geoffrey,
Jesus, God Almighty, I would never have thought I would hear such an understanding tone regarding this subject from the gatekeeper at Yale. I have always been inspired by your dogged pursuits regarding Yale, but now this from you. I know you have been out on the ledge since the election, but you're gonna have to move over now and make room for me.
And while I am at it and feeling bold, God Bless David Wigler for posting that article on Arafat that got taken down so fast. I am glad the bastard is dead, Arafat that is not David, and I am glad the French finally did something in the war on terror by letting their doctors kill him.
-
Kelly
Well we can finally agree on something of substance - re- Arafat. The bastard is finally gone and his wife gets 22 million a year.
I played Seawane not knowing beforehand if it was an attempted restoration or not. I loved it. Good on them.
Roger Rulewich will ALWAYS be THE BUTCHER OF YALE.
1- Yale is a landmark historic course that is unique
2- There is available all the information necessary for a faithful nearly precise restoration of what was built in 1926.
At Yale, they purposly dumbed down features for the sake of maintenance, pace of play and a feeling that aspects of the course were obsolete ??? ::) :'(
At Seawane, they opened up all the vistas, built punishing cross hazards and mounding that make the course much harder to play and maintain. They have reintroduced the links nature of the course and the influence of wind. Ask Jason what research they had available but it certainly is nothing close to what they have at Yale.
Dev Emmet deserves some significant work of his to be restored. His legacy was hurt due to the proximity of much of his significant courses being close to urban centers where land was more valuable for development then it was for golf. Perhaps Tom MacWood can comment on Huntington and St Georges as candidates for "sensitive restorations". I hope to see both of those next season.
-
I agree with Geoffrey regarding Emmet. I would disagree with KB's generalization about GCA...Emmet being a prime example of a dead architect who rarely gets his due. IMO the relative silence on this thread is partially a result of not knowing much about the history of Seawane and not know much about Emmet generally. I wish I knew more about him and his work; that was a primary reason for visiting St. Georges and Huntington. I was impressed by both courses, especially Huntington.
Here is an earlier thread on Seawane involving GCA members who are knowledgable fans of Emmet (Jason, Chris B and Craig D). I'm always interested in learning more about Emmet, perhaps Kelly might know something about Seawane or/and Emmet that he could share with us.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=7202;start=msg139404#msg139404
I don't know much about Kay and restoration abilities...my only encounter with his work was at Ross's Oyster Harbors which was disapointing.
-
Interpretive, tribute design work. Wow. I guess as long as you are one of the blessed GCA architects on this site you can do anything and call it anything and everyone else here will nod thier approval.
Kelly:
I'm at Cuscowilla with my Dad getting my arse kicked 0-4 in our first four matches. We need to win the last this morning to avoid a goose egg. Thus, my wanting response to your earlier posts.
I invite you to come tour Seawane anytime, if you'd like a more professional perspective just let me know and I'll be happy to try and round up our superintendent (who, with his crew, has done everything besides some shaping) and golf professional (who has been invaluable in providing a strong player's perspective to the project). That being said, I would suggest that we have accomplished much more than just "anything," and, moreover, it is far from a direct tribute to Emmet. At first, this interpretive approach concerned me because I gravitate toward traditionalism in these sorts of things, however, the product that we've revealed is IMO fantastic and much better than I ever thought it would be.
In many ways, we have created a new golf course by keeping the original routing and greens while staying true to the links tradition. So much (besides the routing and the greens) had been altered from the original Emmet over time before this project began (e.g., Jones in the 60s; 3000-5000 trees planted after the 64 Worlds Fair; Kay in the 80s) that even with the old aerials that we had, as much work would have likely been required for a total restoration as what we've done.
Moreover, a total restoration would never have been able to capture the original Seawane brilliance because the course used to be ensconsed in sand dunes and open bay views from nearly every hole. Since then, the neighborhood of Hewlett Harbor was built around the club (on land not owned by the club or otherwise reclaimed from the bay).
Interestingly, the original membership contained a short who's who list of the Manhattan gentry of the time. Along with the fate of Long Beach and the other resorty beach areas of that time in the Five Towns, the allure and quality of our course at Seawane unfortunately faded over time.
While Long Beach is currently enjoying a revival so is our course at Seawane. The current membership bought the Club back from the village of Hewlett Harbor in the 60s (after the original membership lost the club) and has currently taken a tremedous step toward placing Seawane back on the map.
Please come and see and then tell us all we've done is pay homage to Emmett . . . I think you'll find things pleasently more complex.
Cheers,
Jason
-
Jason
Who is the designer (or designers) of your new course? Would it be a mistake for a student of golf architecture to come to Seawane to see the work of Devereux Emmet?
-
Jason,
It really is not fair to quote my "anything" phrase to make it seem like I am putting down your course, which I am not doing, I am questioning the reactions of the GCA site though.
again, is the talented shaper Dave Sullivan? Everyone seems to be given the highest accolades by name, yet the shaper is remaining anonymous.
-
Jason,
It really is not fair to quote my "anything" phrase to make it seem like I am putting down your course, which I am not doing, I am questioning the reactions of the GCA site though.
again, is the talented shaper Dave Sullivan? Everyone seems to be given the highest accolades by name, yet the shaper is remaining anonymous.
Sorry Kelly, I missed the otherwise neutral tone of your post. The shaper remains anonymous only b/c I can't remember his name (which is no reflection of his talented work, I've not yet met him).
-
Jason
Who is the designer (or designers) of your new course? Would it be a mistake for a student of golf architecture to come to Seawane to see the work of Devereux Emmet?
The consulting architect is Kay, not sure if that's your question.
Much of the actual product on the ground has been a collaberation of sorts as the boys were digging in the dirt.
It would be a mistake for a student of GCA to not come to Seawane because they are interested only with Emmet and not interested in something that's a renovation as opposed to a restoration. You will see much of Emmet in the routing, the greens and the green/tee complexes, but the bunkering is no longer Emmet shaped.
I think you will also see some sound strategic elements and a good variety of playing angles that, combined with the wind, should yield an enjoyable round on a course that many have told me would be a great course to play day after day, in large part b.c of the variety and the greens.
-
I have never played a Kay course, but I have seen one of his renovations which I do not care for. I am glad Seawane turned out well for the members sake.
Jason-What did Kay do at the club in the eighties? From the sound of it it looks like he may have been part of the original problem, why bring him back? Is Kay one who has a renovation style easily molded by the memberships?
-
was the course kept in play in a reduced format during this renovation or were temporary greens used?
James:
One of the great accomplishments of this project has been keeping the course open and playable for the membership throughout the 5 year project. We did close 3-4 holes each October, renovated them, and then opened them for play the first weekend in May for the Richardson Invitational (a locally competitive amateur event). The new holes were difficult to play for the first month or so and all the new sod was gur but the membership has had an 18 course from Memorial to Labor Day throughout.
I cannot stress enough how hard and how well our super Brian Bennedict and his crew have worked these past 4 plus years. They have rebuilt and maintained the course in excellent condition at the same time which cannot be easy when so much focus has rightly been on the renovation.
-
I have never played a Kay course, but I have seen one of his renovations which I do not care for. I am glad Seawane turned out well for the members sake.
Corey:
Your post reveals a way of thinking that is one of the things that troubles me about this site. The heard instinct is so strong here that while you have never played a Kay course, have seen only one of his projects, you post critically (sorry but it's not a flatering post for Mr. Kay).
Our membership's sake as nothing to do with the issue. With Kay's firm as the consulting architect, we at Seawane have created what I, and many on this site who have seen it, believe to be a first rate product.
This is not directed only to Corey:
Guys and Gals, forget the name on the scorecard and see what's on the ground. If I told you the architect of the new Seawane course is Mr. X/Greens Chairman, I imagine that many here would have nothing to say. The fact is that a project like this is not the work of Kay's firm, or our grounds staff, or our greens committee or any of the above in isolation, it's been a true collaboration and I have said this time after time on this board and yet so many of you gravitate to a name, Emmett . . . Kay (you're closer if you find Mr. X). While I will leave intricate dynamics of these relationships off this board, I will say do not look at Seawane as a Kay renovation per se, do not look at Seawane as an in-house project per se . . .
just come look at Seawane and comment on what you see.
-
What did Kay do at the club in the eighties? . . .
Corey:
Your better question (IMO).
I'm not sure of the extent but I know Kay did some work on the 17th hole and redid the putting green I believe. On 17 (a longish par 5) and with a past greens chairman, Kay added a great cross bunker complex between 120 and 100 yards from the green. It had grass islands but for some unfortunate reason was in a state of disrepair when I first saw it in 2000 and it was removed during this project.
BTW, and Mr. Childs I know agrees, I believe 17 is our weakest hole strategy wise for want of any ostensible risk reward option off the tee and want of any hazard in the lay up area besides the perimeter bunkers down either side of the hole.
We realized this and it's my understanding that we are adding a new tee right of the current back tee box. This will create a much better angle for the tee shot and force a heroic 265 yd carry from the back tee over the menacing sod walled bunker down the right side of the fairway for the shorter and possible two shot route to the green.
-
Don't be so sensitive Jason. I am glad the club is happy they are the ultimate arbitors and are also ultimately responsible. What else can I say that will meet your standards?
The point of the post was that in your original post you said that Kay was reponsible for getting rid of some of the Emmet in the 1980's, along with others. Why bring the man back again, didn't he have his chance?
Your post reveals an attitude that is one of the things that troubles me about this site, ;) People always looking for an arguement.
As a member of a green committee, at a club that is going through the renovation process I am truly interested in why the club, and Kay, and the comittee, and others, did not get it right in the eighties. Is the process different?
-
Don't be so sensitive Jason.
. . .
The point of the post was that in your original post you said that Kay was reponsible for getting rid of some of the Emmet in the 1980's, along with others. Why bring the man back again, didn't he have his chance? . . .
As a member of a green committee, at a club that is going through the renovation process I am truly interested in why the club, and Kay, and the comittee, and others, did not get it right in the eighties. Is the process different?
Corey:
1) I'm a lawyer, I'm never sensitive ;)
2) You're right to have interpreted my post that way, based on the course that Kay had to work with in the 80s I would say he did more to restore, at least the intent of Emmet, in the 80s than anything else. The real Emmet damage appears to have been done by 1) Jones bunker project in the 60s and 2) planting thousands of trees after the Worlds Fair.
I mentioned Kay's work in the 80s to emphasize that what we had to work with for the current project had been touched by many hands over time (note, I've not mentioned all the little projects of greens chairmen past, those add up too).
3) Things were very different from the memberships' perspective this time around b/c we decided to radically change what we had in order to revive a sleeping (dare I say comatose) links.
-
Your post reveals an attitude that is one of the things that troubles me about this site, ;) People always looking for an arguement.
Touche, but I never argue just for arguments sake. ::)
-
After taking a quick look at the progress of holes 7-9 I ran into and met the shaper who has been doing fantastic work for us, Kevin Wagar.
Kevin said that for most of the heavy lifting work he's using a D-7 catapillar and for the more detailed finger work, etc., he's using a D-5 and also an "escavator."
I'll post some more pictures when most of the bunkering is sodded.
-
As I stated last year on a Maidstone post, I'll take Seawane and Inwood over Maidstone any day. Perhaps with the restored water and dunes views, people will recognize the greatness. Playing Seawane has always been a pleasure because the greens are loaded with interesting humps and bumps and wild but fair pin positions. And enough cannot be said about how great the 4th hole stands among the famous drivable risk/reward holes! I really look forward to playing the 9th next year--it used to be a gimmie birdie, it sure looks like there will be a few train wrecks in the Richardson. pro-member, and 5-towns aming the better players next year.
-
And enough cannot be said about how great the 4th hole stands among the famous drivable risk/reward holes! I really look forward to playing the 9th next year--it used to be a gimmie birdie, it sure looks like there will be a few train wrecks in the Richardson. pro-member, and 5-towns aming the better players next year.
# 4) I still pray that #4 is my first hole-in-one. My closest attempt this past year was driver to 6 feet and made it for eagle (to beat a birdie, btw).
#9) Was clearly our weakest hole design wise. So we've added the cross bunker (pictured above) angled toward the green from left to right. Off the back tees it's about a 250 yd carry over the front left (closer to the left side which is out of bounds) and 265 over the back right (the safe line to avoid the out of bounds if you happen to hook it). Unless you routinely carry it 260 plus it's now going to make you seriously think off the tee and if there's a wind in your face it may be a fairway wood for even the long hitters. The great thing about that play is that you could still hit two fairway woods on or in the green side bunkers. It's going to be a much better hole.
-
As I stated last year on a Maidstone post, I'll take Seawane and Inwood over Maidstone any day.
I believe Matt Ward is another not too crazy about Maidstone. Is there another golf couse that frustrates the long hitter more than Maidstone? I can understand why they don't care for it...it is one clever design (designed to mess with those who like to swing away).
I have not played Seawane, but prefer Maidstone to today's Inwood by a large margin....and I like Inwood. The Inwood of the 1930's might have been a different story.
-
I think I've learned one thing from this thread.
Despite my gut reaction favoring a true Emmett restoration on purely philosophical grounds, it seems that much of his fingerprints are long since gone. Fortunately, it does sound as though the greens remain.
So, I'm left with massive tree clearing, institution of cross bunkering (an Emmett standard), reintroduction of strategy into what sounds like formerly benign holes, and a committed membership.
From an architectural standpoint, Kay seems to be one of those guys who works in a variety of style. He has done some really cool things (i.e. his links course in North Dakota and the ideology of the holes at McCullough's Emerald Links in NJ, where among other things, he tried a replica of the original Lido Hole), some middling stuff (Architects Golf Club), and some flat out flaccid renovations that stand out incongruously at places like Geoffrey's home town course. However, I sense that like many architects, he is mostly beholden to the client's wishes and performs those services professionally even when his heart might be in another place.
Most of all, what I've learned from this thread is that I need to get out and see Seawane next year.
-
Kelly Blake Moran,
This site lives off the work of dead architects, and few blessed living ones, and yes I would put Steven Kay in there because Brad Klein, who is highly regarded by the faithful on this site praised Steven for the work on this course, so while I agree with your last statement to some extent, I am amazed that a Dev Emmitt course that is undergoing an interpretive, tribute renovation is being praised on this site.
You're correct.
If Fazio, Jones or some other architect performed "interpretive, tribute renovations", this site would go ballistic.
It's disengenuous at best.
How can anyone know what the final product will be like, or what it will be categorized as, without having the benefit of having played it ?
Tom MacWood's concern over "interpretive restoration" is a very real one, because club's often use the catch all, nice ring to it, phrase, to describe renovation, not restoration work.
And, if clubs do this every 20-30 years, how long before nothing is left of the original work ?
[/color]
I doubt seriously that many here would agree that you can do what you please at any course and as long as the course reamins viable so be it.
Kelly, it again depends on whether or not the architect has had "most favored nation" status bestowed on them.[/color]
But, that is not what I wanted to focus on, I want to know if the gifted shaper Jason failed to name is Dave Sullivan.
-
Pat
Being an architect based in Emmet country, I'm still waiting for Kelly to share with us what he knows about Emmet and Seawane. Pat maybe you have some interesting information you could share with us on Emmet and Seawane. Where would you place Seawane among Emmet's portfolio of notable designs....I suspect it is up there, but I'm not certain...I've run across very little information on the golf course.
I'll hold out judgment until I know a little more about Seawane. As far as Kay is concerned, I don't know much about him either, what I've seen of his restoration efforts is limited to Oyster Harbors and I was extremely disapointing. What were your impressions of his work at Seawane or Oyster Harbors?
I'm not surprised Kelly jumped at the opportunity, being a desciple of Von Hagge I suspect he is a bit sensative to criticisms of compromised great courses. We all know you are extremely sensative to the criticisms against Rees and his sloppy work on famous courses. The positive aspect of both Rees and Fazio's molestation efforts, they choose famous courses with significant amounts of historical documentation: Equinox, Bethpage, Inverness, Oak Hill, Riviera, Merion, East Lake, Maidstone, Sea Island, Hollywood, Quaker Ridge, Lake Merced, Monterey Peninsula, Ridgewood, etc, etc...it reads like a who's who.
-
Patrick/Kelly;
I frankly don't think anyone is giving Kay a free pass on this one, nor do I think he is one of the "most favored" architects on this site.
I can well recall both Paul Turner and I giving "The Architects Club" a pretty derisive critical review here, but I've also pointed out other work of his that has been good, or daring.
I think the issue with Seawane is that there seems to be a lot of question how much of Emmett was still there before Kay began his work. It sounds as though a combination of RTJ Sr. and a lot of free trees from the Worlds Fair disfigured that course as Emmett built it. As it stood, let's face it, it was not one of the most highly regarded courses in the region.
When a guy like Geoff Childs suggests a visit, I listen because he knows hatchet jobs versus good work.
In the case of Rees or Fazio, the difference is that a lot of what they touched were the most highly regarded and well preserved courses and their track record is mixed at best.
The bottom line is that if Stephen Kay did what Fazio did at Merion, Riviera, or Inverness, we'd be lining up with pitchforks and torches. And, if C&C, or Tom Doak, or Kelly Moran did what Fazio did at Merion, Riviera, or Inverness....well....they simply wouldn't do what Fazio did at Merion, Riviera or Inverness.
-
Pat maybe you have some interesting information you could share with us on Emmet and Seawane. Where would you place Seawane among Emmet's portfolio of notable designs....I suspect it is up there, but I'm not certain...I've run across very little information on the golf course.
I haven't undertaken a "ranking" exercise with respect to Emmett's designs[/color]
I'll hold out judgment until I know a little more about Seawane. As far as Kay is concerned, I don't know much about him either, what I've seen of his restoration efforts is limited to Oyster Harbors and I was extremely disapointing.
What were your impressions of his work at Seawane or Oyster Harbors?
I've never played Oyster Harbors and most if not all of my play at Seawane has been pre-Kay.[/color]
I'm not surprised Kelly jumped at the opportunity, being a desciple of Von Hagge I suspect he is a bit sensative to criticisms of compromised great courses.
I'll let Kelly speak for himself, but why would you make the arrogant assumption that Kelly is a "disciple" of Von Hagge ?
Why would you make the foolish assumption that because Kelly worked with Von Hagge that he shares Von Hagge's design philosophy.
You might be interested to find out that he doesn't, that his design philosophy is quite different from that of Von Hagge's.
You continue to make outrageous claims that aren't supported by the facts. That's your trademark.[/color]
We all know you are extremely sensative to the criticisms against Rees and his sloppy work on famous courses. The positive aspect of both Rees and Fazio's molestation efforts, they choose famous courses with significant amounts of historical documentation: Equinox, Bethpage, Inverness, Oak Hill, Riviera, Merion, East Lake, Maidstone, Sea Island, Hollywood, Quaker Ridge, Lake Merced, Monterey Peninsula, Ridgewood, etc, etc...it reads like a who's who.
Tell me Tom, did you sit in on ANY of the committee, Board and Membership meetings at Equinox, Bethpage, Inverness, Oak Hill, Riviera, Merion, East Lake, Maidstone, Sea Island, Hollywood, Quaker Ridge, Lake Merced, Monterey Peninsula, and Ridgewood ?
Do you know, for a fact, exactly what those clubs directed Rees or Fazio to do to THEIR golf courses ?
If not, perhaps you should do more research, rather then indiscriminately assigning blame.[/color]
Mike Cirba,
I disagree.
I always liked Seawane, and I began playing it in the mid 60's
-
Patrick/Kelly;
I frankly don't think anyone is giving Kay a free pass on this one, nor do I think he is one of the "most favored" architects on this site.
I can well recall both Paul Turner and I giving "The Architects Club" a pretty derisive critical review here, but I've also pointed out other work of his that has been good, or daring.
I think the issue with Seawane is that there seems to be a lot of question how much of Emmett was still there before Kay began his work. It sounds as though a combination of RTJ Sr. and a lot of free trees from the Worlds Fair disfigured that course as Emmett built it. As it stood, let's face it, it was not one of the most highly regarded courses in the region.
When a guy like Geoff Childs suggests a visit, I listen because he knows hatchet jobs versus good work.
In the case of Rees or Fazio, the difference is that a lot of what they touched were the most highly regarded and well preserved courses and their track record is mixed at best.
The bottom line is that if Stephen Kay did what Fazio did at Merion, Riviera, or Inverness, we'd be lining up with pitchforks and torches. And, if C&C, or Tom Doak, or Kelly Moran did what Fazio did at Merion, Riviera, or Inverness....well....they simply wouldn't do what Fazio did at Merion, Riviera or Inverness.
Patrick;
Which part of my post do you disagree with? ;)
Perhaps you liked Seawane prior to Kay's work, but would you put it in your top 50 or so in the tri-state region?
-
Mr. Cirba
Why don't you give us your top fifty before you ask Pat? I am not sure you will get any list out of Pat, not his forte. I think he would prefer to speak of specific features on specific courses.
I mentioned the Seawane "sympathetic restoration" recently to a pro and was told it significantly increased the time to finish a round for the membership.
-
Mike Cirba,
I infered, by your comment, that you didn't think much of Seawane.
I enjoyed it, I found it sporty, and WINDY.
All too often, if a course gets categorized as falling outside of the top 50 or 100 it is somehow deemed unworthy, and I don't feel that way about Seawane.
-
Patrick;
I've yet to play Seawane, unfortunately. I'm hoping to rectify that sometime in the next year.
I was asking because it seems to be a course that has clearly been "under the radar" in terms of discussion before this recent renovation by Kay. I had Geoff Childs recommend it to me a few months back and thus became interested in hearing more and seeing it for myself. I guess I was asking what you personally think of the course before and after the recent changes.
My other questions go to your statement that basically says Kay is getting a "free pass" from this group due to being in some "most favored nation" club. I can't buy that at all.
Hamilton;
Patrick is truly capable of speaking for himself. I'd much rather hear your thoughts on Seawane fore and aft if you've been out there. Thanks.
-
I would like to go out to see the course. I have been told that the time per round has syrocketed. Should this be a consideration for a membership when doing a "sympathetic restoration"?
Of course Macwood thinks clubs should be beholden to some web site amatuer architects when deciding what to do with their courses as long as it fits in with his crusade to bash Rees Jones and Fazio.
-
Pat
I'm not asking you to rank Seawane...I'm asking where would you place among Emmet's notable designs in the metro area. Is it among Emmet's best work in the area...other than its breezy location what are some of its outstanding attrtibutes (pre-Kay)?
"Of course Macwood thinks clubs should be beholden to some web site amatuer architects when deciding what to do with their courses as long as it fits in with his crusade to bash Rees Jones and Fazio."
Hambone
No. I think these clubs should be beholden to the likes of Emmet, Tillinghast, Strong, Ross, Travis and George Thomas.
-
Tom MacWood said:
"Jason
Who is the designer (or designers) of your new course? Would it be a mistake for a student of golf architecture to come to Seawane to see the work of Devereux Emmet?"
Stephen Kay has become one of my new best buddies. I do some officiating with him and recently visited his Llanerch project. One of the last times I spoke with him on the phone he was asking me how he could get into GOLFCLUBATLAS.com because he'd heard there were a bunch of architectueal maniacs on there and he wanted to see it for himself and maybe get involved! ;)
Anyone want me to call him and ask him something about Sewane? I'd even be willing to tell him Tom MacWood wants to come there and show him how to really restore Dev Emmet architecture.
-
TE
I'm happy you made a new friend. Perhaps you could invite him on here to share his knowledge of Emmet...there are a number of us who would like to learn more about his architecture. In fact the two of you could present a shared lesson: Kay could give us an Emmet architectural analysis and you could delve into his sexual background.
-
Would love to have Kay participate. Sadly though, he is not a "MFA" and will probably be shouted down and attacked. Too bad.
-
Pat
I'm not asking you to rank Seawane...I'm asking where would you place among Emmet's notable designs in the metro area.
Isn't ranking it, and determining where to place it amongst his work the same thing ?[/color]
Is it among Emmet's best work in the area...other than its breezy location what are some of its outstanding attrtibutes (pre-Kay)
I already told you that I liked the routing and the use of water. I enjoy playing the golf course. As to where I'd place it, I think it's on Long Island, where developers have cannabalized many of his courses over the years.
I've played:
Ridgewood
Green Acres
Congressional
Glen Head
Hampshire
Pelham
Schuyler Meadows
GCGC
Seawane
Nassau
But, was the Nassau that I played remotely close to Emmett's Nassau ? I don't think so. So how can you ask the question about placing his work when so little of it remains ?
As to Seawane or any of these courses, how much of what was there on opening day, remains intact, untouched over 80 or so years, by insiders or outsiders ?
I'm not fond of Greenacres, but I-195 did impact a number of holes.
I'm hoping to play:
Huntington Crescent
Leatherstocking
Rockaway Hunt
Rockville Links
St George's
Wheatley Hills
Have you ever, "not cheated" when going to play a golf course ?
By that I mean that you played a golf course recently, without obtaining any prior knowledge, no history loolup, no aerials, no third party refences, just the golf course and you. And, having completed your round, have you ever evaluated the golf course without "cheating" ?
Is it possible that you liked a good many features, only to find out later on, that they weren't the original architects work ?[/color]
-
I mentioned the Seawane "sympathetic restoration" recently to a pro and was told it significantly increased the time to finish a round for the membership.
While we have made the course significantly more difficult for the single digit handicap player we have actually tried to aid the higher handicap player with additional tee options and bail out areas that didn't exist before or were otherwise less of an option.
That being said, however, the fescues that we've planted gobble up plently of balls so the rounds have been getting longer as the inevitable 5 minute searches are more common.
-
Have you ever, "not cheated" when going to play a golf course ?
By that I mean that you played a golf course recently, without obtaining any prior knowledge, no history loolup, no aerials, no third party refences, just the golf course and you. And, having completed your round, have you ever evaluated the golf course without "cheating" ?
Is it possible that you liked a good many features, only to find out later on, that they weren't the original architects work ?[/b][/color]
Pat:
I think you raise a great point and I wonder if for instance, Tom MacWood or Mike Cirba played Seawane blind, would they be candid in their appreciation or displeasure without first seeing an old aerial or getting a blow by blow description of what we've done as we play.
Therefore, I invite Tom, Mike and anyone else that has not played Seawane, and not analyzed an old aerial like the one from 1940 that I'm holding in my hand (graciously provided to the membership by Craig Disher) to play a round with me next year. Take mental or written notes and after the round we'll sit on the veranda, drink a few beers, and discuss the highlights/lowlights of what was seen.
I will then pull out the 1940 aerial and we can all compare and contrast what we liked/disliked, etc.
I will then post the results of this experiment here for all to ponder and otherwise analyze.
I'm actually looking forward to this because, for instance, Mike Cirba has mentioned Kay's name in virtually every one of his posts on this subject, after I've posted numerous times that Kay's firm worked great with our membership on this project because we ultimately had complete discretion to make the final decisions on the ground as we went. For instance, several times bunkers or mounding was roughly shaped in certain spots, played, and then torn down, moved, scratched or otherwise tweaked. The core concepts were drawn by Kay's firm but much changed as we went and I think the finished product reflects that flexibility. Thus for Mike Cirba or anyone to repeatedly call this a Kay project is misleading, for his firm should not receive all the Emmet purist criticism and should also not receive all the praise because our crew on the ground should share both equally.
So Emmet purists and sympathetic renovationists alike, if you don't already have a detailed understanding of what the old Emmet Seawane looked like, and you are genuinely interested in this project, please contact me and partake in my little experiment, inspired by Mr. Mucci.
Think about this . . . I played last year with two astute GCAers, who besides being wonderful company and educational, both had little old Emmet-Seawane knowledge and both had nothing but high praise for what we've done. I did not have the aerial in hand then but when they both come back next year to see the completely finished product I surely will.
I think this little experiment may shed light on how much of the GCA appreciation/criticism on this Board is name based (name biased) and how much is based on first hand experience.
We shall see . . .
-
Jason;
I'd love to come out next season. Thank you very much.
I'm a bit confused, however. I think it was Patrick who concurred with Kelly Moran that this project would never be criticized because, unlike Fazio or Rees, Stephen Kay is somehow an architect favored among the cognescenti on this board.
I told him that I thought that was ludicrous. I've written about some of Kay's courses in the past, as have others, from both a favorable and a critical perspective. He's hardly "untouchable", as Patrick and others suggested.
As far as Kay's involvement at Seawane, all I know is that he's the architect of record. I do realize that the members are also heavily involved.
My interest in Seawane is based on a really interesting discussion I had with Geoff Childs after he played there. I am hardly an expert in either Dev Emmett (beyond a half-dozen or so courses of his I've played, with probably the most original being the Red Course at Eisenhower Park (originally Salisbury), and I like what I've seen. I'm also completely unfamiliar with Seawane, and have never seen a picture prior to this thread.
So, I'm not sure if that makes me the perfect test lab patient, but I'm willing to come and see and give you my honest, unbiased assessment.
And I'd do that if the architect of record was Stephen Kay or Rees Jones or Kelly Moran.
-
Mike:
I did not intend to imply that you were being critical or complementary of Kay by mentioning him often. I simply pointed that out as an example of how we on this Board seem name oriented. This is a discussion group of architecture first, and architects second (I hope). And while I realize that it's often a common denominator and many architects have a distinquishable style so we can discuss Raynor bunkers vs. MacKenzie bunkers vs. C&C bunkers, I try to focus first and predominantly on the bunker and then on the dead or living guy or gal that drew it.
BTW, it's been a pleasure to have GCAers out to Seawane, so please do come and play.
We are also planning to give a brief presentation at the Winter Conference in NJ so perhaps we will meet there.
Jason
-
Great, Jason...I'll look forward to meeting you at Essex!
-
Jason
Thanks for the generous offer. Unfortunately I'm not from the 'ignorance is bliss' school of architectural appreciation. My goal is to learn as much as I can about a particular architect (Emmet or Kay for example)...as opposed to remaining in the dark as long as possible.
I'm not sure exactly what your goal is with this experiment, but having to resort to a gimick gives the appearance that something is not quite right. This is a website where we share information, not stifle information. If you and Pat prefer to play your golf 'blind' or ignorant, so be it, that's not something that interests me and seems to be opposed the objective of this site.
Instead of proposing an experiment that really doesn't make sense to me and in the end will prove nothing, why don't you write a 'My Home Course' on Seawane. You could share historical information on the course (including the 1940 aerial) and on Emmet, explain the course's evolution, including the recent renovations, and then present why you feel the course today is superior to the original Emmet design.
What is and who are the Emmet purists? There are so few Emmet authorites on this site...I'm disapointed to learn, evidently, you don't consider yourself an Emmet advocate.
-
Jason,
What Tom MacWood is admiting to you is that he doesn't trust his architectural eye.
That he won't take the test without being supplied all of the answers in advance.
Forget the fact that he could always obtain all of the information he seeks AFTER he plays a course.
He's telling you that without the benefit of numerous aerials, an abundance of ground photos, and written documentation, he can't distinguish the authorship of one feature from the next.
He couldn't tell if a superintendent had created or removed a feature 40 years ago, or if it was in the original design. And as such, he's afraid to take the test because that feature, created by someone he deems to be an inteloper, just might be a great feature that enhances the hole.
What's the difference if the original architect added that feature or the superintendent 40 years subsequent ?
If it's a good feature and enhances the hole, DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE WITH RESPECT TO WHOSE IDEA IT WAS ?
Understanding Tom's love of the old architects, how does he reconcile their disfiguring of an incredible number of existing courses in their day ?
Why was it okay for Ross, AWT, Maxwell and others to alter existing golf courses, but not anyone else.
Why was it okay for Maxwell to alter Pine Valley, but Fazio's a villain for doing the same thing at Pine Valley ?
Jason, thanks for your offer. I will take you up on it this spring. And, if I make a mistake in identifying an Emmett feature, when it was some superintendent's feature, added 40 years ago, it's not the end of the world.
-
"TE
I'm happy you made a new friend. Perhaps you could invite him on here to share his knowledge of Emmet...there are a number of us who would like to learn more about his architecture. In fact the two of you could present a shared lesson: Kay could give us an Emmet architectural analysis and you could delve into his sexual background."
Tom MacW:
I've been there and done that on here! So why do it again? Didn't you understand the influence that had on the architecture of GCGC and basically why Travis changed it?
You think you know something about the styles and nuances and evolution of architecture but you haven't even gotten to first base yet in understanding it. You're still stuck in trying to figure out what angular vs engineered architecture is.
But GCGC and Dev Emmet---now there's something truly unique in the history of golf course architecture. That course started out under Devie as the world's first example of Gay golf architecture and then that world class grouch and virulent homophobe Walter Travis tried to heterosexualize the entire course, only to be eclipsed in the late 20s and early 30s by return visits from Devereaux who added some of his best evolved homosexualized style to the course.
GCGC is world class architecture and a top rated course but it remains, without question, the best example there is of a totally unique style in the entire history and evolution of architecture known as the "transexualized style"!
Have you ever wondered why Doak doesn't want to completely restore the 12th green? Just look very carefully at some aerials of it and you may figure it out. But on the other hand, perhaps you won't!
-
I’ve been studying golf architecture, and in particular the history of golf architecture for a long time. I can’t remember the last time I played a golf course (old or modern) without knowing who the architect was, and some information on that architect, or without some third party reference, or without running across some old photo at one time or another. In my opinion knowledge is preferable to ignorance. The more information you have, the more information you can absorb. If you are looking for blindness you've come to the wrong place.
If I teed off today at Seawane I wouldn’t be blind…I’ve seen parts of the old aerial… I’ve seen an aerial from a few years back….I’ve read the comments of third parties (some positive, some critical)…I’ve recently visited two of Emmet’s more famous designs (St.Georges and Huntington)…I’ve seen Kay’s restoration work at Oyster Harbors. I’m not blind.
My evaluation of a golf course is what it is, and it is effected by all my experiences and all the information I’ve absorbed over the years…I prefer it that way. I love Yale despite Rulewich’s shoddy work…I love GCGC despite the 12th… if I wasn’t aware of those changes prior to visiting are you saying I would have loved those courses even more…your experiment makes no sense.
If we like Kay’s changes while blind (or partially blind), can you conclude we wouldn’t have liked the changes with prior knowledge? No. Perhaps it might be an interesting experiment for TE Paul, he appears to be in the dark often….I’m not interested.
Another point, documenting history and evaluating golf courses are completely separate activities. Pat has a problem differentiating between the two…the Hollywood pissing contests as an example.
It is your prerogative to believe that Mike C and I do not approach a golf course with an open mind and that are views are not candid….in other words we are biased…that’s not a new complaint….usually coming from a party who has a differing opinion on a golf course or an architect…we often disagree on here, but to attribute that disagreement to some bias is intellectually lazy IMO.
-
I'm not sure exactly what your goal is with this experiment, but having to resort to a gimick gives the appearance that something is not quite right. This is a website where we share information, not stifle information. If you and Pat prefer to play your golf 'blind' or ignorant, so be it, that's not something that interests me and seems to be opposed the objective of this site.
Instead of proposing an experiment that really doesn't make sense to me and in the end will prove nothing, why don't you write a 'My Home Course' on Seawane. You could share historical information on the course (including the 1940 aerial) and on Emmet, explain the course's evolution, including the recent renovations, and then present why you feel the course today is superior to the original Emmet design.
What is and who are the Emmet purists? There are so few Emmet authorites on this site...I'm disapointed to learn, evidently, you don't consider yourself an Emmet advocate.
Tom:
I respond by first saying that I second everything Pat states in his response above and without trying to make this personal, I add the following to your comments above in reverse order:
1) I advocate no single architect, living or long dead, and while I like some much more than others, I advocate strategic design over an otherwise interesting piece of land, so to the extent that Emmet has created that at Seawane or anywhere else I am an Emmet advocate . . . to suggest I'm not based upon my suggested open minded outing at Seawane is inane.
2) I'm not surprised that my proposal makes no sense to you, based only upon what I've read from you, you have little GCA thought that cannot be classified, categorized and otherwise over identified. Regarding a My Home Course, I intend to first see if Ran is able to visit and post a review (currently 10 on his next 25 us list), if so, I will hold off so as not to otherwise influence his process. As far as proving nothing, I think Pat answered that fully. Lastly on this paragraph, I have never once stated that I "feel the course today is superior to the original Emmet design." In fact, I don't think that's possible given the radical transformation that the boundary property has gone through, changing from open sand blown dunes to a fully developed neighborhood. In fact I've stated we'll never be able to recapture Seawane's original majesty because of this, even if we did a complete restoration.
3) If you see honestly see my suggestion as a "gimick" than it is you Mr. MacWood that is intellectually lazy, or perhaps intellectually timid is more appropriate. Dare to make your own observations and draw your own conclusions first, then place what you have observed in a historical construct and assign it all an author. It's much easier to avoid candid and original commentary, and, in fact, thought, if you have first filtered a course through such a construct.
Lastly, given the thought and commentary that my "gimick" has triggered, I'd say it comports precisely with the "objective of this site," meanwhile, if anything, it is your ostensible unwillingness to consider architecture before assigning it a category, author, or otherwise filtering it through your construct (all of which is clear from your post) that offends the objectives of this site.
-
".....Perhaps it might be an interesting experiment for TE Paul, he appears to be in the dark often…."
Tom MacWood:
Coming from some I really respect in this field that remark would be troubling to me but not coming from an eternally self-impressed noodlehead like you Pal! ;)
-
"I advocate no single architect, living or long dead, and while I like some much more than others, I advocate strategic design over an otherwise interesting piece of land, so to the extent that Emmet has created that at Seawane or anywhere else I am an Emmet advocate."
I think I follow you...I think you are saying you are an Emmet adovocate because he practiced strategic design over interesting land (inlcuding Seawane, no?). I was confused by your constant referrence to 'Emmet purists' as if it were some kind of a negative label. Who are these Emmet advocates anyway?
There is no reason to wait for Ran...the 'My Home Course' feature will not compromise or pollute Ran's opinion of Seawane...in fact if anything it might interest him to visit sooner than later. You appear to be paranoid about the perceptions of your course based upon too much information.
Has the property that the course sits on been reduced over the years...is that why it would be impossible to restore? When did Craig Disher donate the aerial...was it before or after Kay's plan?
Frankly I don't understand the purpose of your proposed excerise. It sounds like Pat's goal is to test my "architectural eye". It appears your goal is to get a candid non-biased review of Seawane...while at the same time prove that GCA's appreciation is based upon name and not substance. Very different goals.
My architectural eye is pretty good...but I wouldn't consider myself a Emmet expert by any means. Regarding your concerns with candid, non-biased reviews...when haven't I given a candid, unbiased review? I admit I do appreciate a number of big names for obvious reasons. One of the big names being Alister MacKenzie...perhaps you should read my review of my home course if you have any doubts about my ability to give a candid unbiased opinion and to evaluate each course on its merits no matter how big the name.
I think everyone would love to learn more about Seawane, Emmet and its history...and Kay and the club's current activities.
-
"I think I follow you...I think you are saying you are an Emmet adovocate because he practiced strategic design over interesting land (inlcuding Seawane, no?). I was confused by your constant referrence to 'Emmet purists' as if it were some kind of a negative label. Who are these Emmet advocates anyway?"
I do appreciate Emmet, especially the routing and greens he did at Seawane. I reacted with the Emmet purist phrase, in most part, to a previous comment of yours questioning whether it was a mistake for a serious student of Emmet to visit Seawane (to which I said it would only be a mistake not to visit).
"You appear to be paranoid about the perceptions of your course based upon too much information."
While I'm not paranoid about anything golf related, my only concern is that some here will pre-judge Seawane on not enough information, the dead opposite of your perception. I have this concern because of what I clearly see on this Board as a strong bias for all things long dead. I'm also concerned, as I've stated many times in less direct ways, that what we've done at Seawane will be labelled a "Kay project." That label is not fair to all involved and since you have already seemed to label it that my concern seems warranted.
"Has the property that the course sits on been reduced over the years...is that why it would be impossible to restore?"
Yes it's been reduced and part of what we've done is reclaim borders, but no, that is not why it's impossible to truly restore, the neighborhood standing between most of the course and Reynolds Channel is the problem, if you've seen old and recent aerials that will be obvious.
"When did Craig Disher donate the aerial...was it before or after Kay's plan?"
Craig provided me with a copy of a 1940 aerial last year (year 3 of 5) and Kay did not draw an entire plan, as far as I know, he drew things hole by hole as we went. Also, I'm not sure that his firm did any formal drawings after the second year, but I could be mistaken there.
"It appears your goal is to get a candid non-biased review of Seawane...while at the same time prove that GCA's appreciation is based upon name and not substance. Very different goals."
These goals are the similar enough to me.
"I think everyone would love to learn more about Seawane, Emmet and its history...and Kay and the club's current activities.
"
We hope that everyone will.
-
Tom MacWood said:
"Another point, documenting history and evaluating golf courses are completely separate activities."
Tom MacWood:
Is that right? And which do you think you’re doing? Evaluating golf courses and then supplying the documented history shows most of us what golf architecture is all about—who did it, who was responsible for what and perhaps why, what contributed to styles and trends and principles etc. After a while one begins to understand better the entire evolution of all this and perhaps why it got that way, where it was at any point, who took us there and why and ultimately where we are now and perhaps where we may go next and why.
Documenting history and evaluating golf courses are completely separate activities, are they? You sound like someone who continues to claim Economics 101 has nothing whatsoever to do with the real world! Your type of ersatz intellectualizing is mumbo-jumbo and your constant purist pontificating is laughable, in my book. What do you do any of this for? What’s the purpose really? Is it to show all of us you found something in some 90 year old magazine before anyone else did? If so, what does that prove? How does one evaluate that? What does that mean? How is it to be evaluated to have some use? What does it mean to you if it can’t be used to evaluate golf courses which are our architecture?
I just read through all Jason Blasberg’s posts and your responses. A gimmick you call his offer to you. It sounds to me like you just don’t have the guts to put yourself in the position to be shown to be something less than the expert you keep insinuating you are as you continuously wrap yourself in old articles and photos. And for what? What does it mean to you if you can’t use it to ultimately evaluate architecture with it? Look at Pat, there---he said he’d do it and if he’s wrong about something, so what?
Take the blind test Jason Blasberg is offering you. Go play, have some fun and look around and see what you can identify. Isn’t that what you keep feeding all of us on here with those old photographic architecture tests?
Go take the test—it won’t kill you. The worst it can do is show you how much you have to learn just like the rest of us.
-
TE
Thanks for the suggestions...I'll file it right between your research on Dev Emmet the world's first Gay golf architect, homophobic Walter Travis, the evolution of architecture known as the “transexualized style” and your insightful comments regarding Tripp Davis’s restoration of Engineers.
-
Devereaux Emmett was gay?!?! :o
Why, I thought the little man was just mildly eccentric and dashingly dapper, with just a curiously strong fascination with fashion, theatre, and his mother?
-
Devereaux Emmett was gay?!?! :o
Why, I thought the little man was just mildly eccentric and dashingly dapper, with just a curiously strong fascination with fashion, theatre, and his mother?
I was as shocked as you Mike ;D
Much earlier in my posting days my first exposure to TPaul was one of his regarding Glen Head and as I recall little Devie was basically called to the mat as a girlie man in first rate Arnold (I'm not even going to try to spell his last name) style. You can imagine my surprise. :o
-
“TE
Thanks for the suggestions...I'll file it right between your research on Dev Emmet the world's first Gay golf architect, homophobic Walter Travis, the evolution of architecture known as the “transexualized style” and your insightful comments regarding Tripp Davis’s restoration of Engineers.”
Ah God, I’ll tell you Tom, you may be a big purveyor of historic articles and photos on golf architecture but when the Old Man handed out the sense of humor allotment who knows where you were. Is it remotely possible for you to stop taking yourself so seriously all the time? Why bother to respond to that post of mine though? Why don’t you talk about why you really don’t have the guts to take Jason Blasberg up on his kind offer that couldn’t possibly help but be educational for you and perhaps some of us too. It pains me to say this but I think Patrick Mucci has been dead right about you all along in which case his correctness percentage has probably just shot up to around 15%! ;)
“Devereaux Emmett was gay?!?!
Why, I thought the little man was just mildly eccentric and dashingly dapper, with just a curiously strong fascination with fashion, theatre, and his mother?”
MikeC:
Thank God your sense of humor is working but I have no idea if Devereaux was gay or a Casinova. I only said that stuff about his Gay Architecture because that photo of him in his bio was so funny. Talk about the “Cat in the Hat”. For all I know Devereaux Emmet may’ve just been trying to be more like Tom Wolffe. I also mentioned Emmet’s Gay Architecture about six months ago to see if I could get Tom MacWood to lighten up just a snitch when he was telling everyone how much he knew about the entire architectural evolution of GCGC and what they should do despite never having laid eyes on the place. But I won’t try that again---there’s no point.
-
Jason;
We both should have known better when it was rumored that Dev's trademark design moundings weren't known as "Mae Wests", but instead as "Teddy's Tush", as in the bespactled, mustachioed, Roughriding former President's ample backside.
Apparently, Emmett was also known for coming up with the phrase, "gotta love them Cowboys!!" used later by the Dallas NFL franchise.
-
MikeC:
Do you realize if Devereaux had come within arm's length of Teddy's tush the world of golf architecture would never have had GCGC and a host of other great Emmet courses? Devereaux Emmet would've been a dead man!
-
Mike
From what I understand Oliver Stone is producing a movie on Emmet, and TE's writing the screenplay.....it should hit theaters sometime after Seawane's centenary. By that time Jason should be club president and they'll be on their fifth interprative architect
TE
How's that background research coming?
-
"Mike
From what I understand Oliver Stone is producing a movie on Emmet, and TE's writing the screenplay.....it should hit theaters sometime after Seawane's centenary. By that time Jason should be club president and they'll be on their fifth interprative architect."
I'd be happy to write the screen play but I want Woody Allen to direct. I'm no fan at all of that pompous ass Oliver Stone. By the way, Jason, I'd like to say you're a stand up guy to invite contributors on here to play and study Sewane. If I were you though I'd invite one more Mike Cirba and drop Tom MacWood. What kind of remark is that about when you become the president the club will be on its fifth interpretative architect? That's as dumb and as gratuitous as the things MacWood has said about my club and its architecture, two things he's never seen and and has virtually no knowledgeable about but that doesn't stop him critiquing the golf course and the entire history of my club's membership
"TE
How's that background research coming?"
Pretty good so far. MikeC supplied a dynamite story-line about Devie and Teddy's Tush. I'd say that's great background.
-
TE
Lighten up.
-
Tom MacWood,
Have you EVER judged an architectural feature SOLELY on its MERITS, and not on its AUTHOR ?
That's what I'm asking you to do, and that seems to be what you're either incapable of, or fear the most.... that you'll like and appreciate the feature based on its merits, and not on its designer.
The 14th hole at Hollywood is a perfect example.
First you trashed ALL of Rees's work there, but, when you saw it in person, you changed your mind, you claimed it was brilliant. How do you reconcile your two, divergent opinions of the exact same work ?
-
Pat
I believe you are mistaken about my past comments about the 14th at Hollywood and trashing the golf course generally. Although you continually asked my opinion of 14th (and other features Hollywood) I always refused to judge the merits of the course (and Rees's changes to the 14th). That was my point on my post above...you often confuse documentation of changes with a judgment of the course's merits.
(http://homepage.mac.com/tmacwood/.Pictures/Hollywood14.jpg)
Hollywood's 14th pre-Rees
I always judge a course based on its merits. For example I'm a great admirer of Alison and Gil Hanse...I was not overly impressed with Century (good, but not that good) and I don't believe Gil's restoration quite got Alison right.
-
"For example I'm a great admirer of Alison and Gil Hanse...I was not overly impressed with Century (good, but not that good) and I don't believe Gil's restoration quite got Alison right."
Tom MacWood:
I'm a great admirer of what I've seen of Alison. I also admire Ross and Gil Hanse too who just did our course but if you're disappointed in what Gil did at Century because you think Gil didn't quite get Alison right, perhaps it's time you begin to understand that maybe Gil wasn't trying to get Alison right as you suggest. Perhaps Gil was trying to get a hole right and as good as it can be today. You don't seem particularly willing to accept that fact for some reason. Why is that? Is it possible for you to accept the fact that sometimes maybe original architects didn't exactly get something right or as good as it can be? Gil added a bunker right in front of our original Ross 18th hole's green. We all think it made the hole much better. Does that sound to you like something that shouldn't have been done because it changed an original Ross hole?
-
TE
What is your opinion of Century and how does it compare with the other Alison courses you've seen?
-
Tom MacWood,
No, you made a definitive statement regarding # 14 at Hollywood and Ree's work on that hole.
I asked you a specific question about # 14 green at Hollywood, and you said that Rees's work there was brilliant.
Tom, also look at those horrible little trees behind the green on the picture you posted. Who do you think planted them ?
Hint: It wasn't Rees. And, if your powers of observation were keen that day, you probably noticed them all over the golf course. You should know that Rees wanted to take down many trees planted over the years, long after Travis's work, and that he was precluded from doing so. Fortunately, a major storm, some say a mini tornado, took out many trees a few years ago, and hopefully, the new President, a terrific fellow, will continue to clear the golf course of all of those trees damaged by that storm, this winter.
I've played Century a few of times, probably before Gil worked on the golf course. It's hard to say what was original and what wasn't, but, Century had a mix of some very interesting holes and some so-so holes. It was obvious that someone had planted trees indiscriminatlely over the years.
Century has had a very unique membership over the last 50 years and probably from inception. Without benefit of sitting in on committee, Board and membership meetings, it's difficult, if not impossible to know what marching orders the architect was given, don't you think ?
-
By that time Jason should be club president
Luck, Sir, plays a part!!!!
-
Jason, you said the same thing about Seawane that I just wrote about Engineers. It is the essence of the course that matters. I liken this to the people who think of Hogan and Mo Norman as having the ultimate swings and every other swing as being only almost as good. Wrong. Today's best ball strikers have entered a higher stratisphere--I love my Hogan footage, but 2000 Tiger is incredible. Golf courses may not necessarily be better, but there is no reason why courses cannot be continually improved. When I played Royal Melbourne a couple of years ago, the 2 new bunkers looked original--more importantly, they made the course play better!
-
Pat
It would be easy enough to find out what his marching orders were....call him and ask him. I have no idea what they were, but I have told him my opinion of the golf course. If you compare Century and its two rivals, Fenway and Quaker Ridge, the most impressive IMO is Fenway (brilliantly restored by Gil), then Quaker Ridge followed by Century. Which is the exact opposite of their social status from what I understand. I'm not sure Century was ever in the same class as those other two courses.
-
Tom MacW:
I've never seen Century and I really don't know much about Alison architcture. We had a tour this fall of Burning Tree but obviously a lot has changed there. I vaguely remember how pleasant Sea Island was but that was decades ago. I certainly was impressed by Hirono's old photographs but one can really only make out the old look of the course from those---looked very much like early PV to me. What I'm most familiar with is the four greens he designed at PVGC and all his instructions and playing logic that was on his hole drawings. Those obviously are impressive and those holes are as untouched as 80 year old holes can be from an architect. And I was particularly impressed by Alison's hole by hole analysis of Flynn's Shinnecock design before it went to construction.
-
Robert Mercer Deruntz:
As far as I can tell from a number of these threads between Tom MacWood and others (Engineers, Century, Sewane et al) the issue always seems to be that Tom MacWood does not accept this idea known as "improvement" at all. It would be interesting to some day determine if he's advocating exact recreation of old features without any thought to how differently they may play today with changes in the game or not. Another factor may also be the "look" of some of the restored features he has a problem with. It may even be true to say that he does not believe some of the old architecture should be touched at all. When it comes to bunkers and such that's pretty hard not to do over the years as they do need to be repaired in various ways from time to time. And certainly just regular maintenance practices can change the look of old architecture, sometimes dramatically, unless there's some dedicated effort not to do that. That's something I've never really heard a course try to do though, except perhaps PVGC at various points over the decades.
-
TE
For whatever reason, you (and Pat) have a difficult time understanding my position on preserving important works of golf architecture. I’ve explained my position many times….I’ll explain it once again. IMO there are relatively small number of golf courses that should be preserved and/or restored--courses like Engineers, Fishers Island, Hollywood, GCGC and Yale—landmark designs.
Some of these courses were great the moment they opened the doors, many others evolved into greatness and there is a subjective process of determining an architectural high point. As an example GCGC was originally laid out by Emmet/Hubbel, it was significantly improved by Travis, improved again by Emmet in the 20’s and finally by Tilly in the early 30’s.
Each golf course has a different history and so each course should be evaluated on its unique architectural history. Does that mean an important golf course can not be improved today…no. But I’m extremely leery of improvements based upon examples like Inverness, GCGC (post WWII), Riviera and Sea Island.
IMO these landmark designs should be preserved for future generations to study and enjoy. I believe these clubs should be realistic when evaluating their golf courses. Most of these courses have moved tees as far back as possible to adjust for technology…I have no problem with that as long as it doesn’t compromise some other aspect of the design…it is preferable to moving bunkers.
Many of these landmark courses were at one time championship venues, but realistically they can no longer stand up to the very best players…so what. If you are a club that possesses an important golf course that your members can enjoy every day of the golf year, why would you care if a Long Island club pro wants a stiffer challenge for some local event or why would you want to compromise your important design to co-host a US Am pre-qualifier for one weekend every twenty-five years…especially if you have a course with the prestige of a Somerset Hills or Maidstone firmly entrenched in the top 100. Courses like Engineers and Hollywood could take their place with these clubs if they realistically evaluated their golf courses and took stock in what they have and what they once had.
Based upon what I’ve seen of Century it was always a good course, but never a great course…I would not consider it a landmark design. As far as my comments are concerned, I thought the restored bunkering looked more like Tilly than Alison. That is my observation take, it for what it is worth. Regarding Seawane, I have said I know very little about the golf course and wish I knew more about Emmet. I have no idea if it was a landmark design and have no opinion on the current course’s merits.
One of the reasons it often appears I’m some kind of zealot is because this site is focused on the best of the best and often landmark designs become the topic of conversation.
Hopefully I won’t have to explain my thoughts on this subject for a while.
-
Tom MacWood:
You don't have to explain your point to any of us again. We do understand what you're saying, at least I do. It's not that I don't understand your point it's simply that I (and probably a number of others) don't really agree with it. In general and in theory of course we agree with much of what you're driving at but the fact is when a club is undergoing even a restoration project they do have to get into some areas of design and architecture that are more actual than your theoretical take on things.
To be specific, I think we all agree with you that adding tee length to a hole where it can be done easily is generally a non-invasive thing to do architecturally. In some cases that's simply not possible, though, so what's to be done to bring a hole like that up to the expected standard of strategic concept and/or shot value it once was and was designed to be? You tell us! That kind of thing is probably the specifics of where some of us disagree with you, even if this is on courses you consider in that category of great and untouchable. This is where we talk about the idea of improvement which you appear to reject even in prinicple. None of us really like to get into touching the mid-body of a great holes architecture but if the hole has zero elasiticity what's to be done--you tell us. If you reply just leave it alone completely in some state of strategic, concept and shot value obsolesence, I'm afraid that's not just unrealistic, it's actually unacceptable. That's sort of taking your eye off the ball on what's at the base of truly great architecture in the first place. Every golf hole has to constantly pass some kind of "play test" that some refer to as "passing the test of time". That means, in play, if you're not aware of that.
The fact is, in my opinion, you're simply too oblivious to what club memberships want to do to maintain the playability of their golf course which logically can include all their holes. You say why should they care about what some local pro does there or about some qualifier or tournament or such.
That's not the way it is in most all clubs, Tom, and one of these days you'll probably have to come to realize that or just continue to be considered by some of us to be the unrealistic purist dreamer we believe you are in some cases.
The point here is that almost all these clubs that are classics and considered to be great or once were do have a contingent of players in their memberships who are good players and like any other member they want to be considered in how the course plays for them! On could probably make the point that this is even truer with those courses that were and are considered great! This group in most every club is not insignificant and cannot be disregarded as you seem to think they should be in the name of your perscription for preserving great architecture.
In my opinion, as long as you continue to set your self apart as a type of academic or purist architectural analyst who refuses to take seriously these realities we will always probably have these differences of opinions. It's too bad you haven't been or can't be involved in some of these projects from the perspective of a club membership as some of us have been.
At the very least it does give anyone a dose of the realities of this stuff---something I don't think you have. The sad thing to me is you don't seem to even want to acknowledge it, and to me that's not living or thinking in the real world. It's dreaming, the very thing many of us have always accused you of doing and probably will continue to.
Perhaps you actually think your purpose would be served better if you do stay above the fray of the inevitable realities of these things that go on in every club and course that goes through even a restoration project. But one can never avoid that fray if you actually get involved which you don't seem to ever want to do. That's fine by me, but you should learn to acknowledge reality if you want to be an effective golf architecture analyst, in my opinion.
So, I think we understand your postion on all this just fine, at least I think I do, and you should understand ours. As far as agreeing, that's not so important, in my book.
-
By that time Jason should be club president
Luck, Sir, plays a part!!!!
After further consideration I revise that statement, luck, in these matters, has absolutely nothing to do with it, unless it's misfortune.
-
MikeC:
Do you realize if Devereaux had come within arm's length of Teddy's tush the world of golf architecture would never have had GCGC and a host of other great Emmet courses? Devereaux Emmet would've been a dead man!
Au Contraire, Monsieur Paul.
As can be seen in this never before released photograph, the two men can be seen cavorting, hunting, fishing, and laying out holes for a proposed Emmett designed course near Hyde Park. ;)
Emmett's mustache was said to have been inspired by his close admiration of the President's. Gives whole new meaning to the "Bull Moose Party", doesn't it?
(http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/graph%20harv%20col/HC3x5.jpg)
I'm off to apply for a job as a stringer for "The Daily Globe".
-
If you compare Century and its two rivals, Fenway and Quaker Ridge, the most impressive IMO is Fenway (brilliantly restored by Gil), then Quaker Ridge followed by Century. Which is the exact opposite of their social status from what I understand. I'm not sure Century was ever in the same class as those other two courses.
Tom:
I'm finding it hard to comprehend the relevance of social status regarding anything GCA related.
-
TE
Based upon commets like this "As far as I can tell from a number of these threads between Tom MacWood and others (Engineers, Century, Sewane et al) the issue always seems to be that Tom MacWood does not accept this idea known as "improvement" at all." I don't think you do understand. I've mentioned anything about the imporvments at Seawane or Century.
"To be specific, I think we all agree with you that adding tee length to a hole where it can be done easily is generally a non-invasive thing to do architecturally. In some cases that's simply not possible, though, so what's to be done to bring a hole like that up to the expected standard of strategic concept and/or shot value it once was and was designed to be? "
Give me a specific example and I'll tell you.
"In my opinion, as long as you continue to set your self apart as a type of academic or purist architectural analyst who refuses to take seriously these realities we will always probably have these differences of opinions."
Somebody has to do it...obviously you are not equiped to bring this information to light....you were to busy congratualting Tripp Davis on his fine work at Engineers (I'm pretty sure you've never seen the course at anytime and have no knowledge of Strong's original design).
There are plenty of advocates for the restoration architects, and the members, we all hope the members can stand up for themselves...but who is defending the original architect? Not too many. Tommy and Geoff Shackelford at Riviera, Geoff Childs at Yale, Jeff Mingay with some of Thompson's designs, Mike Cirba at Merion and yours truly with handful of others. I'm sure there are others (Pat at GCGC) who I have failed to mention, but you aren't one of them.
Speeking of members, if anything I feel sorry for the membership of these clubs, I think they have been misled by a minority, including a number of architects.
-
Mike Cirba, you research genius:
That's the most amazing photo imaginable and so apropos to this discussion. This website never ceases to amaze me by the incredible things some of the contributors can produce at a moment's notice!
Good Show!!
-
Mike Cirba, you research genius:
That's the most amazing photo imaginable and so apropos to this discussion. This website never ceases to amaze me by the incredible things some of the contributors can produce at a moment's notice!
Good Show!!
Yes, Tom...
This clandestine photo was hidden from the public for years by the President's key advisors due to a few very obvious factors;
1) Emmett's whispered reputation in certain circles as a "Pansy", and how that might look to voters and the genteel public of 1914.
2) Emmett's obvious physical excitement evident in the photo, almost certainly caused by his physical proximity to the Great Man himself.
3) The location of Emmett's right hand in the photograph cannot be verified with any authenticity, leading to much speculation.
4) T.R.'s obvious "winking" to the cameraman (speculated by others to be more akin to a "wince") similarly served as a source of internal administration gossip and speculation.
-
Tom MacWood:
I think we definitely do understand each other and where we're coming from. And because I think we do I must admit I really can't believe you think I'm blind about classic architecture and don't have a concern for it. The fact that you keep insinuating that on here I find frankly insulting and pretty callous---and in the end that's probably most of the problem I've always had with you--and always due to this additional reason.....
You don't have a personal stake in anything you do or say as far as I can tell and it seems not only that you never have but you never want to. I can't see that you've ever actually been involved with a golf club and a membership, like actually belonging to one and trying to preserve the course's architecture, as most of the rest of us on here have.
We've put our time, our feelings, sometimes our reputations in those places and other places on the line for what we believe in which is unquestionably the understanding and preservation of classic architecture and you just haven't done that. I doubt you have much idea what it's like---it really can be hell sometimes. Many of us have paid a real price for what we believe in. Have you? Are you willing to? It doesn't seem like it to me. Hence you're sort of sloughing off the necessary importance of a membership as you try to tell us how important it is that you stay out of and above that fray. I don't buy that and I never will and it sure doesn't look to me like many others who put their time and feelings and reputations on the line do either.
I have all the respect in the world for the research you do and the things you can come up with, and I've told you that many times. That's only one part of all this, though--maybe not even the half of it, in the end.
I was just talking to Brad Klein about this whole subject. I admire him because he knows this stuff really well as some of us on here do, he cares about it as most of us on here do but he goes out there and puts his feelings and reputation on the line all the time. He gets in the fray and takes the flack and in the end actually makes a real difference with architecture.
I don't see a guy like you doing that or even willing to and then you have the callousness to crticize guys like us who do for what we've done or what we think!?
On the research side you're terrific--on the other half of what it takes to really get something positive done you either seem to have no clue or claim you really don't care.
To me, and apparently to others on here, that's living in an ivory tower. I just want to know why you do that. And don't tell me, as you once did, you don't have the time and you have a family to think about instead. Most of us have families to think about too and don't really have the time either but we do it anyway.
You actually say to us that you and some others you named need to stay above the fray to really defend the work of the great dead architects! You have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to defend the work of the great dead architects you have to really get in there face to face and word to word with the people who are trying to wreck the work of the great old architects.
You don't do that! You should. But unitil you do you should stop crticizing people who truly are trying to defend and preserve the work of some great old architects.
-
MikeC:
Take a close look at Devereaux in that photo. He looks flat-ass dead to me! I think Teddy probably had already killed him for getting too close to his tush and had him embalmed and stuffed and had them both photographed together to divert the criminal investigation!
-
Tom;
There's no question that Dev has that "faraway look" in his eyes in the photo. What you see as "flat ass dead" I see as the look of a man in some state of euphoric bliss or physical ecstasy. Tom...look again, my friend. I think this is even more obvious than the long grass to the right of the #2 hole at Pacific Trails.
I might even be inclined agree with your "Single Taxidermist Theory" if not for the undisputable fact that the photo was taken in 1914 and either Emmett or someone disguised as Emmett went on through the 1920's to design any number of golf courses, as well as continuing on his hobnobbing ways with the formerly staid members of the metropolitan gentry.
This being a family forum, I'll also simply state that the cut of Emmett's trousers certainly doesn't indicate a "stiff" to me, either. :o ;D
The Roaring 20's, I guess!
-
Mike:
You're right, it is more of a "faraway" look than a "flat-ass dead" look. The thing that really worries me about that photo of Emmet and that "faraway" look is I just can't see Devie's right arm. I don't know where you got that photo but why don't you go back and see if maybe a series of photos of that scene were taken. If you can get lucky and find the very next one the photographer took a second or two later we just might see a very surprised look on President Teddy's face!
-
Tom;
If this discussion hasn't proven how much useful information CAN be derived from analyzing photos, I don't know what would.
As I mentioned above, the actual location of Emmett's right hand was the source of much vile speculation, gossip, and innuendo by insiders who were among the few to actually see this photo during those times. T.R.'s political opponents would have had a field day if the photo had been released, so the Roosevelt-favoring press participated willingly in the hushup.
-
(My voice, echoing in the now-empty thread...)
Jason?
Tom??
MacWood??
Where'd everybody go?? ??? ;D
-
TE
Since you enjoy analyzing me and my activities, perhaps it is time we take a look at you as well. Its not that I think you are blind, but I sometimes wonder if the passion is there in general sense. You appear to be interested in Flynn…no doubt sparked by Wayne Morrison’s passion....likewise with Behr fueled by Geoff Shackelford’s passion, but once you get off a few pet interests, the knowledge and burning desire doesn’t always appear to be there. You obviously have an interest in golf architecture and the history of golf architecture…but is it more an interest than passion?
What you did for Gulph Mills was fabulous and I’m sure you and Wayne have made a positive impact on a number of Flynn clubs, but when it comes other clubs and other architects, that come up from time to time on GCA, you often don’t have the historical background…although it never stops you from commenting, or often criticizing me. It is as if you resent the fact that I have the information to share about an important design and its possible corruption.
There is no magic secret to good research or a good researcher…it boils down to a desire to seek information, to discover and learn everything you possible can. You might think you have a burning interest, you might tell everyone you have a burning interest, but unless you are actually doing the frantic digging, the interest is only a casual one IMO. And I think it is obvious when you get involve in discussions about courses like GCGC, Engineers or even Aronimink…you really haven’t spent a lot of time researching their architectural history. And to make matters worse you discount those who have.
Perhaps I don’t have a personal stake, and then again it depends upon what you consider a personal stake. I don’t have a membership in a private club to worry about. I’m not involved in a local golf association….so there are no political considerations. At Ohio State I continue to lend my knowledge and expertise, but I really have nothing tangible at stake. Its free information and even if I angered someone (which I don’t anticipate) they can’t kick me out the club or take away a consulting fee.
Would my information change or be more valuable if I were a member of a club? Would my information change or be more valuable if I was an officer of the District Golf Association? I don’t think so. I’d share the information with them for the same reason I share information on this site, I have a passion for great golf architecture, the history of golf architecture and preserving and protecting the legacy of great golf architecture. I’m not really concerned about my reputation…I figure if I’m honest to myself my reputation will take care of itself.
I think it is great (and commendable) that you have put up in your time, your feelings and your reputation into those places. I wish I had more time and more resources myself. But I wonder if you sometimes worry more about your reputation than you do about the architecture. Criticizing certain famous Philadelphia clubs has become an obvious taboo. And you are more than willing to defend (or rationalize) away any criticism of certain restoration architects…no matter if you have any information or not.
Have I paid a price? I don’t think so. I don’t do what I do for access…so if I’ve been cut off from playing a famous golf course or two, I don’t consider it paying a price. I don’t do it for monetary reasons, so I haven’t paid the price in that way…I’ve never received a dime from anything I’ve written or any research I’ve shared…not that I wouldn’t take it if someone wanted to pay me. Perhaps the only price I’ve paid are the thousands of hours I’ve devoted…but that’s been a pleasure.
You might think my approach is callous, but in my view to remain silent would be the bigger crime. I do attempt to stay clear of personal attacks, so perhaps callous is not the right word to describe it.
Would it be better if I got out into the fray and put my feelings and reputation on the line? I think it would be better if I got out into the field (the feeling is already there), but I can’t be everywhere…it would be impossible for me to be at Hollywood and Del Paso and Engineers and Hirono and Liphook at the same time. And thankfully you don’t have to be member of all those clubs to voice your concerns or share information, and thankfully you don’t have to be a paid consultant to have a voice, and thank God for GolfClubAtlas and the Aussie magazine Golf Architecture which have given me an ivory tower to express myself. Hopefully slowly but surely it will have an impact…maybe in some way it already has…either way I ain’t stoping.
Have a happy Thanksgiving.
-
Thanks for the reply. As I've said many times before to you I have great admiration for the research you do, I have no doubt at all that everyone does. And that is extremely valuable to many people, there's no question of that.
However, there is another part of restoring and hopefully preserving architecture, great architecture and perhaps not so notable architecture. That's another process altogether in my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of most all who've been directly and actively involved in it.
That other part is the part you don't get involved in and by your own admission don't wish to. Perhaps you think it's better that way but I don't. And I don't seem to be alone at all in that thought, particularly when you present yourself, as you do often on here, as this "stand above the fray defender" of the architecture of those you refer to as the great Dead Architects, as if some of those, such as myself, aren't that in some way. It's my feeling that so many of those who get actively involved, many who contribute on here, do the best they can do. They can't do more than that but I feel you have little understanding of that and don't much care to understand that.
So it galls me when you criticize those clubs and courses and often their memberships, sometimes some you've never even been to. You don't own this architecture and neither do I--nor do the others who try at their respective clubs to preserve it as well as make it as good as it can be. We're the ones who are trying our best to get those that do own it to do the right thing with it now and in the future.
As far as research is concerned, again, I do feel you are very good at finding and producing valuable material but as I'm sure you know by now, you and I definitely do not agree in many instances about how to analyze it and what it really means. For that I think one needs to become very familiar with a club itself. My passion is for golf courses that I think are really good. I've only studied a number of them that way--GMGC, Merion, PVGC, NGLA, Maidstone, Shinnecock, and to a lesser extent to date a number of Flynn's courses, Kittansett, TCC, Lancaster, PCC etc, etc.
Question my passion for this stuff if you like, that really doesn't matter to me---I have no desire to compete with you in any way and I surely don't feel I need to prove a thing to you, and I don't think those who are doing the things I'm doing do either. We all are probably going in the same basic direction on this stuff in our own ways. There're plenty out there that are proud of the things they've done and continue to do and they tend to defend them, particularly if we get to the point where our memberships, and the memberships of other clubs, really do enjoy the things we've worked for. In the end, even the greatest architects, alive or dead, have fairly unanimously said---that what all this is about.
You have a Happy Thanksgiving too, Tom.
-
Tom MacWood & TEPaul,
I think one of the only things that seperates your views is the reality of membership decisions.
In a perfect, ideal world, I think most of us would opt to cleanse the blight of disfiguration from classic or golden age golf courses, keeping most of them intact, as they were originally designed and built.
In an ideal world, the original architects would remain as ghostly consultants long after they've departed this world.
In order to understand changes wrought upon golf courses over the years, you have to understand self interest, ego, power, the psychology of inheritance, denial of legacy, finances and pillow talk. These are just a few of the factors that fuel and influence change.
Taking a classic golf course today, and restoring it to its original form is like taking a long term marriage and restoring it to the days of courtship. Too much has happened and too much has changed over the years to permit a return to a blissful time.
But, there is a balance.
Unfortunately, most clubs have neither the knowledge or the desire to restore their club to its mirror image on opening day.
I agree with Tom MacWood in that I almost always oppose change at a golf course because I fear it will be detrimental to the architectural integrity of that golf course.
I also agree that I would like to restore lost features, as close as possible to their original form, where it is PRUDENT to do so.
The problem is, that neither Tom MacWood, TEPaul, Geoff Shackelford, Geoff Childs, myself nor many others are in charge of these projects. And, even if we were, in most instances, compromises that go against the grain of purist restoration woujld have to be made in order to gain membership support and financing.
We have to discern what is and what isn't possible, and sometimes, like in marriage, compromise is the prudent, but not the purist solution.
Unless you have a good pre-nup ;D
-
(My voice, echoing in the now-empty thread...)
Jason?
Tom??
MacWood??
Where'd everybody go?? ??? ;D
Sorry Mike, we received a pre-ordered copy of the new Nelson Demille book, "Night Fall" and spent much of yesterday reading
it aloud since we only got one copy.
This weekend I will rekindle the title of this thread with some new photos (weather permitting).
Eat lots of Turkey everyone.
-
"Tom MacWood & TEPaul,
I think one of the only things that seperates your views is the reality of membership decisions."
Pat:
Fundamentally, that is it! I think what someone like me is doing and has done is benefically influencing what's inevitable. It seems Tom MacWood's point is that even restorations are too risky to some architecture. I don't believe that. I think the type of restorations I'm interested in doing and inspiring is actually far less risky to the future of classic architecture and its preservation. I believe that doing what some of us do in restoration projects actually preserves architecture from the things that inevitably will happen to it if we were not involved. And I believe ultimately that's preservationist. The alternative would be far worse, in my opinion. The point is if we were not actively involved with and within memberships a far worse alternative would be inevitable! It seems like the history and the evolution of classic golf architecture has proven that beyond any doubt.
I believe that the Tom MacWoods can remain above the fray but the degree to which clubs don't listen to them---which would be a very large degree, in my opinion, is the degree to which courses and great architecture would continue to get corrupted. That's where I think those such as us can definitely minimize corruption of classic architecture. It's never a perfect world but that doesn't mean you shouldn't stay actively involved to make it as good as possible.
Of course its a compromise to some extent. It's a little bit like a deal. You can sit there and say you won't budge on the price but if you do that and the deal never happens where does that leave you and a project? It leaves you with a potentially much worse alternative.
-
Pat
Our differences are much greater than just that.
Why should the inter-workings of the membership have anything to do with doucmenting great golf courses? If you and TE prefer to concentrate or investigate the political structure and decision making logic of clubs like Hollywood, Sea Island,Seminole, Bethpage, Oyster Harbors, Engineers and Scioto, that's great. It should have no effect on my activites. I will continue to respect those clubs and refrain from any persoanl attacks on their motives. But I will also continue to bring out the quality of the original and historic works, and how some of these courses have been compromised.
We are both interested is fact finding--mine has to do more with historic and architectural documentation; yours and TE's politics and club decision making. I am concerned that some of the political decisions are made without benefit of the historic and architectural information.
-
Tom MacWood,
Why should the inter-workings of the membership have anything to do with doucmenting great golf courses?
It doesn't[/color]
If you and TE prefer to concentrate or investigate the political structure and decision making logic of clubs like Hollywood, Sea Island,Seminole, Bethpage, Oyster Harbors, Engineers and Scioto, that's great. It should have no effect on my activites.
It's not a question of concentrating on, or investigating the political structure and decision making logic of clubs, it's the RECOGNITION of those influences, and the ABILITY to deal with them to achieve positive changes, including restoration attempts.[/color]
I will continue to respect those clubs and refrain from any persoanl attacks on their motives.
That's admirable, a worthwhile pursuit. [/color]
But I will also continue to bring out the quality of the original and historic works, and how some of these courses have been compromised.
That's also a noble endeavor, just exercise caution, as many changes at clubswere undertaken internally, and have no trail of documentation.[/color]
We are both interested is fact finding--mine has to do more with historic and architectural documentation; yours and TE's politics and club decision making.
That's a disengenuous statement and you know it.
In fact, it's blatantly dishones on your part[/color]
I am concerned that some of the political decisions are made without benefit of the historic and architectural information.
That's a valid concern, but many decisions are made WITH the full benefit of the historic and architectural information.
Just look at the right, greenside bunker at # 17 at GCGC and the pond on # 16 at GCGC. Also look at the recommended disfiguration of the golf course vis a vis the proposed seperate tee for holes # 6 and # 8, and the terrible failure to restore # 7, despite the ease of accomplishment, and awareness of the full knowledge of the history and architectural information.
[/color]
-
Tom MacWood,
If you and TE prefer to concentrate or investigate the political structure and decision making logic of clubs like Hollywood, Sea Island,Seminole, Bethpage, Oyster Harbors, Engineers and Scioto, that's great. It should have no effect on my activites.
It's not a question of concentrating on, or investigating the political structure and decision making logic of clubs, it's the RECOGNITION of those influences, and the ABILITY to deal with them to achieve positive changes, including restoration attempts.[/color]
You would have to be a complete moron not to recognize the influence of club committees in altering golf courses—directly and indirectly (in their directives and hiring decisions).
As far as the ability to deal with the clubs to achieve positive changes, until I become a paid consultant traveling the country from club to club, I see no reason why I must concern myself with dealing with clubs and club committees. Perhaps you or TE can share your local experiences to help others in similar positions.
But I will also continue to bring out the quality of the original and historic works, and how some of these courses have been compromised.
That's also a noble endeavor, just exercise caution, as many changes at clubswere undertaken internally, and have no trail of documentation.[/color]
My interest is documenting the original architecture and/or the architectural high point of important designs…I’m less interested assigning historic blame.
I am concerned that some of the political decisions are made without benefit of the historic and architectural information.
That's a valid concern, but many decisions are made WITH the full benefit of the historic and architectural information.
[/color]
IMO the most useful thing I can do is to continue to bring information to light. Historic information on important designs which may help guide decision making at some point and also to uncover unfortunate compromises to important designs…like GCGC, Hollywood, Bethpage, Aronomink and Engineers…especially those done in the name of restoration. That is where the Ivory Tower comments usually come about. So be it, these architects and club committees have been operating in an atmosphere of virtual immunity for a long time…it’s about time their actions should be brought to light and questioned.
-
Tom -
The above green and red post has got me in the Christmas spirit big time.
-
"But I will also continue to bring out the quality of the original and historic works, and how some of these courses have been compromised."
Tom MacWood:
So what? What's the purpose of that and what good will it do any golf course if you have no idea how to communicate it to a membership that obviously has to do with doing something about it?
"I am concerned that some of the political decisions are made without benefit of the historic and architectural information."
If you're so concerned about the decisions that're made then why don't you do something about it by communicating with and trying to convince those who make the decisions, as some of us do?
-
Michael
That was my goal.
God bless us everyone!
-
TE
Thats a good idea. I think may go to the next committee meeting at Augusta National, then on to Pine Valley, followed by Cypress Point, Hirono, Morfontaine and Cruden Bay.
-
"TE
Thats a good idea. I think may go to the next committee meeting at Augusta National, then on to Pine Valley, followed by Cypress Point, Hirono, Morfontaine and Cruden Bay."
Tom MacWood:
That's typical. I don't think you'll ever have the vaguest idea what we're talking about. Frankly, PVGC, CPC, and probably a few of the others don't really need your help, they seem to be doing just fine. Why don't you start with Ohio State's Scarlett course? That's close to the Ivory Tower, isn't it?
-
TE
Great advice. Being well versed in golf architecture and the innerworkings of university politics...what do you suggest I promote architecturally at Ohio State...and what should I do politically that I haven't already done?
You have extraordinary access to Pine Valley, Seminole and Merion...what has your impact been?
-
Tom MacWood,
How do you know what the original architecture was ?
How do you know that one year after a club opened, the superintendent didn't change a number of features ?
And continued doing so every year for 10 years prior to any aerial or ground level photos.
What do you know of the ORIGINAL Hollywood ?
Should Travis be deemed a disfigurer ?
Should the golf course be restored to its original configuration ?
And, how do YOU define the architectural high water mark ?
That's subjective, and your views may radically differ from those of others.
If you made a determination that 1932 was the architectural high water mark of a classic golf course designed and built in the late teen or early 20's, to which date would you seek to restore the golf course ?
I know that you like to avoid answering pointed questions, but, I'd appreciate honest answers to the above inquiries.
Thanks.
-
Pat
Are you familar with the original Mackie design?
What were the complaints with the Mackie course? And Mackie's Canoe Brook?
What was the reputation of Travis's reworked Hollywood?
Don't play games with me.
-
Tom MacWood,
I asked you first.
-
Pat
Either you are insulting my intelligence or you really don't have a very good understanding of Hollywood's architectural history...I suspect the latter.
-
Tom MacWood,
For a fellow who is so intelligent you sure draw wild conclusions.
You can suspect anything that suits your need to draw erroneous conclusions, I have no problem with it.
Now, could you answer the questions I asked you ?
Thanks.
-
I've answered these same questions at one time or another....here we go again.
How do you know what the original architecture was? The original architecture of what?
How do you know that one year after a club opened, the superintendent didn't change a number of features ? Research.
And continued doing so every year for 10 years prior to any aerial or ground level photos? Research.
What do you know of the ORIGINAL Hollywood? Issac Mackie designed the original Hollywood in 1913, it was criticized from the start. In 1914 the club began altering Mackie's course...in 1916 they hired Seth Raynor to revise the course, eventually the club hired Travis in 1917 to a carry out a redesign. Travis's design was hailed, not only nationally, but internationally.
Should Travis be deemed a disfigurer? No. Would you deem him a disfigurer? Did he disfigure GCGC? My idea of a disfiguring would be RTJ at GCGC and his a son at Hollywood....altering/redesgning/leaving their mark on historically important designs.
Should the golf course be restored to its original configuration? Travis's original configuration.
And, how do YOU define the architectural high water mark? I would define it has the high point of a golf course's architectural history.
That's subjective, and your views may radically differ from those of others. Yes it is subjective...the evaluation of any art form is subjective
If you made a determination that 1932 was the architectural high water mark of a classic golf course designed and built in the late teen or early 20's, to which date would you seek to restore the golf course ? 1932.
-
Tom MacWood:
You certainly are into research and I'm glad of that, very glad---it's an essential thing, in my opinion, and the more one can find the better the understanding of any golf course and its evolution, architecturally and otherwise.
I haven't researched courses like Sewane and Hollywood but I have PVGC. You keep questioning some of my assumptions and conclusions on the place, Crump's intentions etc. Can I ask you what you think you may have research-wise on the course that I may not have? And may I ask you where you got any direct or actual research material from the course itself other than indirectly through me?
-
TE
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, conclusions and assumptions....often we agree, other times we disagree.
The recent thread on PV and isolation is not a case of differing opinions, unless I've misunderstood you, you have presented it as a historic fact. I'm just trying to find the documentation that supports this fact. Is it a historic fact or an assumption?
-
"Is it a historic fact or an assumption?"
Tom MacWood:
Obviously that's what we're discussing, wouldn't you say? Let me ask you something. If one can't find something written about some event by whomever the event involved does that mean to you it therefore should not be considered an historic fact? Does a bear shit in the woods? I guess he doesn't as far as you're concerned because as far as most know a bear has yet to write about it!
-
Tom MacWood,
While I applaud you efforts at research, you are so naive in this area that it's incredible. You think that every change at every golf course is just sitting in a file, complete with committee and board minutes, financial records, aerial and ground level photos, and the architect's diary. That's not the way it is.
I know of so many changes, substantive changes, to certain golf courses that are completely undocumented. And, these changes happened in the last two, five, ten twenty and forty years. How do you pretend to be able to magically uncover undocumented changes ? You can research until the cows come home and you won't find an iota of evidence regarding these changes. And absent that information, how can you make the iron clad statement of what the original architects work was and wasn't ? Or, what the club's high water mark was ?
Just look at your debate relative to Aronimink.
Your positions conflict with one another.
On one hand you don't want original works touched, and you want any changes to those courses plowed under with purist restoration your goal.
And then, you say it's okay to alter a design. You say that clubs should strive for their high water mark.
But there are some difficult questions that you CAN"T ANSWER.
1 Who makes that call at each club ?
2 Why do you feel that a course's high water mark is solely
in the past, why can't it be in the courses future ?
3 And, if it's in their future, then YOU open the door to
alterations and disfigurations, don't you ?
It can't be okay for Travis to modify Emmett's work, but not okay for Rees to modify Travis's work.
However, if you're saying that the alteration of a golf course is okay if the golf course is improved, then it counters your earlier desire to have no course touched, and every modified course returned to its original form.
And, if it's okay to alter a golf course in the name of improvement, then you open the flood gates for modifications or disfigurements, BECAUSE EVERY CLUB MAKING MODIFICATIONS THINKS IT'S IMPROVING THE GOLF COURSE.
That's valid today, it was valid 40 years ago, and it will be valid in the future.
If you're going to take a purist position, stick to it.
-
TE
When you make a claim that historical figure like Crump promoted the idea of isolation and there is no written documentation from Crump or any of his contemporaries, then what you have is speculation or a theory...quite different from a documented fact.
-
Tom MacWood,
While I applaud you efforts at research, you are so naive in this area that it's incredible. You think that every change at every golf course is just sitting in a file, complete with committee and board minutes, financial records, aerial and ground level photos, and the architect's diary. That's not the way it is. ~~You are preaching to the choir. How many golf courses have you researched?
I know of so many changes, substantive changes, to certain golf courses that are completely undocumented. And, these changes happened in the last two, five, ten twenty and forty years. How do you pretend to be able to magically uncover undocumented changes ? You can research until the cows come home and you won't find an iota of evidence regarding these changes. And absent that information, how can you make the iron clad statement of what the original architects work was and wasn't ? Or, what the club's high water mark was ?~~ It is not necessary to document every single change and who is responsible for every single change to find the architectural high point. GCGC’s high point was somewhere between 1932 and 1950. Do you disagree with this? Have you documented all the changes from 1900 to the present?
Just look at your debate relative to Aronimink.~~The architectural history of Aronomink is not the same as Hollywood which is not the same as GCGC. Each course has a different history. And what Rees did to Hollwood is not the same as what Prichard did at Aronimink. They are seperate cases and seperate issues.
Your positions conflict with one another.
On one hand you don't want original works touched, and you want any changes to those courses plowed under with purist restoration your goal.~~Your over simplistic view of these things is getting annoying. Is GCGC of 1935 the original untouched work? Is Pebble Beach of 1928 the original untouched work. Is Hollywood of 1918 the original untouched work? Is Merion of 1950 the original untouched work?
And then, you say it's okay to alter a design. You say that clubs should strive for their high water mark.~~Yes. There are a limited number of historic designs that should preserved and protected. Each course got to their historic high point in different ways...some were born that way others were altered into it. Because Hollywood and GCGC were altered into it over fifty years ago, does that mean we should allow Rees Jones or Tom Doak redesign them today?
But there are some difficult questions that you CAN"T ANSWER.
1 Who makes that call at each club ?~~ Obviously we are only talking about a relatively few historically important designs. IMO it should be determined by historians.
2 Why do you feel that a course's high water mark is solely
in the past, why can't it be in the courses future ?~~It could be, but historically important designs should be preserved and protected .
3 And, if it's in their future, then YOU open the door to
alterations and disfigurations, don't you ?~~You lost me.
It can't be okay for Travis to modify Emmett's work, but not okay for Rees to modify Travis's work.~~Travis altered what would be considered by any standard an average golf course (and that might be giving it the benefit of the doubt). Rees altered a golf course that was considered a masterpiece in its day….four different experts claimed it was the second best course in America.
However, if you're saying that the alteration of a golf course is okay if the golf course is improved, then it counters your earlier desire to have no course touched, and every modified course returned to its original form.~~Its not that difficult Pat, but you still need to let your brain work a little….I know you like everything ultra simple, but unfortunately it takes a little brain work, not much mind you.
And, if it's okay to alter a golf course in the name of improvement, then you open the flood gates for modifications or disfigurements, BECAUSE EVERY CLUB MAKING MODIFICATIONS THINKS IT'S IMPROVING THE GOLF COURSE.~~Right on!
-
This Tom MacWood guy is getting a bit more than a little strange. What's he doing now but arguing with himself! ;)
-
Tom MacWood,
How many golf courses have you researched?
Just a few.[/color]
It is not necessary to document every single change and who is responsible for every single change to find the architectural high point.
That's awfully convenient.
So if a great feature was added, and later removed, it wouldn't be important to document that, especially if it might be key to determining the architectural high point ?[/color]
GCGC’s high point was somewhere between 1932 and 1950. Do you disagree with this?
No, but for a different reason.
I think that there is an abundance of data and photographic evidence circa 1936 that supports restoration to that date.[/color]
Have you documented all the changes from 1900 to the present?
NO, and neither have you.
A perfect example is, that no documentation exists relative to the change made to the right greenside bunker at # 17.
As recently as this past saturday this subject came up, and NOONE can find one iota of documented evidence of this change. If this change is permitted to remain, 50 years from now, noone will know why, how and when it was done.[/color]
Is GCGC of 1935 the original untouched work? Is Pebble Beach of 1928 the original untouched work. Is Hollywood of 1918 the original untouched work? Is Merion of 1950 the original untouched work?
No, but you can't have it both ways.
you can't be selective in saying which courses should be restored to their original form, and which courses are okay to alter.[/color]
Each course got to their historic high point in different ways...some were born that way others were altered into it. Because Hollywood and GCGC were altered into it over fifty years ago, does that mean we should allow Rees Jones or Tom Doak redesign them today?
According to you, YES, because that alteration might bring them to their architectural high water mark.[/color]
1 Who makes that call at each club ?~~ Obviously we are only talking about a relatively few historically important designs. IMO it should be determined by historians.
So, the members should have no say in the destiny of their golf course, interesting theory.[/color]
historically important designs should be preserved and protected .
Why can't they be improved, to reach their high water mark ?
[/color]
Travis altered what would be considered by any standard an average golf course (and that might be giving it the benefit of the doubt). Rees altered a golf course that was considered a masterpiece in its day.
This is possibly your most intellectually dishonest statement to date. You know that the day Rees stepped onto Hollywood that it wasn't considered a masterpiece.
That the members and others had altered it innumerable times, or haven't you done your research on Hollywood ?
[/color]
Four different experts claimed it was the second best course in America.
And, in what year did they claim that Tom ?
This is another dishonest representation on your part.[/color]
-
Pat
"How many golf courses have you researched?
Just a few."
~~What courses?
"GCGC’s high point was somewhere between 1932 and 1950. Do you disagree with this? No, but for a different reason.
I think that there is an abundance of data and photographic evidence circa 1936 that supports restoration to that date."
~~If documenting every change is so important what did Tillinghast, Colt and the superitendent do at GCGC prior to 1936?
"Travis altered what would be considered by any standard an average golf course (and that might be giving it the benefit of the doubt). Rees altered a golf course that was considered a masterpiece in its day.
This is possibly your most intellectually dishonest statement to date. You know that the day Rees stepped onto Hollywood that it wasn't considered a masterpiece.
That the members and others had altered it innumerable times, or haven't you done your research on Hollywood ?"
~~Are you claiming Rees was oblivious to Hollywood's reputation? The Club had an opportunity to restore a masterpiece...they chose not to and hired one of the greatest disfigurers of our time (who you blindly defend). I'll let you determine who is to blame there. Comparing Emmet's GCGC to Travis's Hollywood is dishonest....that is like comparing Notre Dame to USC.
"Four different experts claimed it was the second best course in America.
And, in what year did they claim that Tom ?
This is another dishonest representation on your part."
~~In the 1920's...the so-called Golden Age of design. What is dishonest about that fact?
-
~~What courses?
Preakness Hills, Boca Rio & Pine Tree.[/color]
~~If documenting every change is so important what did Tillinghast, Colt and the superitendent do at GCGC prior to 1936?
That's my point, you'll never come to absolute resolution on who did what, when and why. But, since you're the expert on GCGC, what did the superintendent's do to the 8th hole post 1936 ? Just the superintendent's Tom.[/color]
"Travis altered what would be considered by any standard an average golf course (and that might be giving it the benefit of the doubt).
That's baloney and you know it. GCGC was recognized as a good golf course before Travis came along. The USGA held the 1900 US Amateur there, the MGA held the 1899 Amateur and the US Open was held there in 1902.
Some of the original holes remain conceptually intact today. You've become intellectually dishohest in your quest to disparage others. [/color]
Are you claiming Rees was oblivious to Hollywood's reputation?
NO, and that has nothing to do with the issue.[/color]
The Club had an opportunity to restore a masterpiece...they chose not to .
Correct, and for good reason.
The old golf course would be unplayable for a large segment of today's membership, and those members weren't going to endorse a plan that would make their golf course extremely difficult[/color]
and hired one of the greatest disfigurers of our time (who you blindly defend).
I don't blindly defend Rees. I defended him from false allegations, such as yours. Allegations absent the facts, and conclusions that are so stupid that they defy belief, like the allegation that Rees inserted the mounds at # 4 and # 7 at Hollywood.[/color]
I'll let you determine who is to blame there. Comparing Emmet's GCGC to Travis's Hollywood is dishonest....that is like comparing Notre Dame to USC.
You're like a spoiled infant and a woman scorned.
Inserting Notre Dame and USC into the discussion reflects the act of a desperate man who's losing the debate and seeks to deflect the topic of conversation.
Emmett's golf course was a very good golf course and you're not being honest if you state otherwise. Research should have made that clear, or do you just research and disclose what suits your purpose ?[/color]
In the 1920's...the so-called Golden Age of design. What is dishonest about that fact?
I'll tell you what's dishonest about it.
You conveniently omitted that Rees worked on the golf course about 70 years after the statements had been made.
Long after the intervening membership had made tremendous alterations to the golf course.
You deliberately tried to mislead others.
That's dishonest and you know it.[/color]
-
~~What courses?
Preakness Hills, Boca Rio & Pine Tree.[/color]~~With all due respect...Boca Rio and Pine Tree? Those golf courses were built in the 1960's.
~~If documenting every change is so important what did Tillinghast, Colt and the superitendent do at GCGC prior to 1936?
That's my point, you'll never come to absolute resolution on who did what, when and why. But, since you're the expert on GCGC, what did the superintendent's do to the 8th hole post 1936 ? Just the superintendent's Tom.[/color]~~You claim we must discover what every architect and super did between inception and the present, but then state GCGC's high point was 1936 even though you aren't aware of all the changes. What gives?
"Travis altered what would be considered by any standard an average golf course (and that might be giving it the benefit of the doubt).
That's baloney and you know it. GCGC was recognized as a good golf course before Travis came along. The USGA held the 1900 US Amateur there, the MGA held the 1899 Amateur and the US Open was held there in 1902.
Some of the original holes remain conceptually intact today. You've become intellectually dishohest in your quest to disparage others. [/color]~~Yes average, average in a pool of below average golf courses. US Am sites Morris County, Onwentsia and Atlantic City were equally average. May I recommend Travis's article in the early 1900's in which he critiques GCGC.
Are you claiming Rees was oblivious to Hollywood's reputation?
NO, and that has nothing to do with the issue.[/color]
The Club had an opportunity to restore a masterpiece...they chose not to .
Correct, and for good reason.
The old golf course would be unplayable for a large segment of today's membership, and those members weren't going to endorse a plan that would make their golf course extremely difficult[/color]~~That is your opinion...I don't believe the course was unplayable then, nor would be unplayable today.
and hired one of the greatest disfigurers of our time (who you blindly defend).
I don't blindly defend Rees. I defended him from false allegations, such as yours. Allegations absent the facts, and conclusions that are so stupid that they defy belief, like the allegation that Rees inserted the mounds at # 4 and # 7 at Hollywood.[/color] Are you serious...not blindly defending Rees? Not #4, but Rees did alter the bunkering and mounding at #7, and I wish that was the extent of it.
I'll let you determine who is to blame there. Comparing Emmet's GCGC to Travis's Hollywood is dishonest....that is like comparing Notre Dame to USC.
You're like a spoiled infant and a woman scorned.
Inserting Notre Dame and USC into the discussion reflects the act of a desperate man who's losing the debate and seeks to deflect the topic of conversation.
Emmett's golf course was a very good golf course and you're not being honest if you state otherwise. Research should have made that clear, or do you just research and disclose what suits your purpose ?[/color]~~Which is it spoiled infant or woman scorned? I was just pulling your chain. It wasn't a very good golf course....certainly not a golf course in the same class as Hollywood, Engineers, Lido, Yale or the improved GCGC.
In the 1920's...the so-called Golden Age of design. What is dishonest about that fact?
I'll tell you what's dishonest about it.
You conveniently omitted that Rees worked on the golf course about 70 years after the statements had been made.
Long after the intervening membership had made tremendous alterations to the golf course. [/color] ~~You left out the part..."a golf course that was considered a masterpiece in its day." I think everyone knows what 'in its day' means, especially after three thousand posts on Hollywood and its architectural history. Pat give everyone on here credit...they aren't as easily confused as you apparently are.
-
What courses?
Preakness Hills, Boca Rio & Pine Tree.[/color]~~With all due respect...Boca Rio and Pine Tree? Those golf courses were built in the 1960's.
So what. You asked me what courses I had researched and I answered you.[/color]
You claim we must discover what every architect and super did between inception and the present, but then state GCGC's high point was 1936 even though you aren't aware of all the changes. What gives?
It's simple. Since we can't discover what every architect did, what every change was on every feature since inception, I'm content to take the course as it existed in 1936 since there is an abundance of aerial and ground photos to document what existed at that particular time. It's called PRACTICALITY.[/color]
"Travis altered what would be considered by any standard an average golf course (and that might be giving it the benefit of the doubt).
May I recommend Travis's article in the early 1900's in which he critiques GCGC.
Did it ever occur to you that he was being self serving ?[/color]
That is your opinion...I don't believe the course was unplayable then, nor would be unplayable today.
Correct, it's my opinion AND the opinion of 200 members of Hollywood. Which members of Hollywood support your opinion ?[/color]
but Rees did alter the bunkering and mounding at #7, and I wish that was the extent of it.
Tell me exactly how Rees altered the mounding on # 7 ?
Especially the mounding in the right rough, 100-200 yards from the green.[/color]
It wasn't a very good golf course....certainly not a golf course in the same class as Hollywood, Engineers, Lido, Yale or the improved GCGC.
Tom, how can you compare GCGC circa 1900 to golf courses that weren't even in existance at that time ?
Yale 1926
NGLA 1911
Lido 1917
Hollywood 1916
This is disengenuous of you. A trait you're exhibiting all too often.
At it's time, circa 1900 GCGC was well thought of in American golf.[/color]
You left out the part..."a golf course that was considered a masterpiece in its day." I think everyone knows what 'in its day' means, especially after three thousand posts on Hollywood and its architectural history.
The juxtaposition of your two statments, one dealing with a contemporaneous alteration and the other dealing with an alteration 70 years removed, were an attempt by you to mislead the readers of this thread.[/color]
Pat give everyone on here credit...they aren't as easily confused as you apparently are.
That's because I've unbundled your allegations, the ones you tried to blend together to mislead readers.
Try being intellectually honest, then noone will be confused.[/color]
-
Tom macwood
would you please give us your ranking of american golf courses in 1900? I have seen the list you provided for 1939, it is quite interesting.
-
Hambone
CB Macdonald wrote in 1904 about the best courses in America, "it is generally conceded Garden City, Myopia and the Chicago GC, knows that in America as yet we no first-class golf courses comparable with the classic courses of Great Britain and Ireland." HJ Whigham wrote a similar critique, in fact he thought American golf architecture was actually regressing in the early 1900's.
Macdonald went on to build the NGLA, and the three courses mentioned underwent significant changes.
Pat
Here is photographic comparison of the 7th at Hollywood.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000000771.jpg)
(http://homepage.mac.com/tmacwood/.Pictures/hollywd7.jpg)
(http://homepage.mac.com/tmacwood/.Pictures/hollywd77.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000000791.jpg)
The color pictures are post-Rees. The first B&W picture is shortly after Travis redesigned the course. The next photo is later, but prior to Rees. The original Travis design was nearly treeless save the 12th and 13th holes.
Note the mounding Rees favors around the perimeter of his bunkers...including the far side of his bunkers furthest from the green. Also note the curved lollypop-like shape Rees favors. It is dispointing he would impose his stylistic preferences.
What was specifically was self serving about Travis's critique of GCGC...I thought it was fair and thought provoking...especially from an architectural standpoint.
-
Tom MacWood;
Why those are even more amazing photos than mine of Teddy and Dev in the throes of budding frontier passion! ;)
What a great green and it's clear that the bunkering by Travis was much different in style than what is presented at Hollywood presently. Then again, I always knew that Travis didn't really emulate Rees Jones' stylistic bunkers, which can be seen at Quaker Ridge, East Lake, Congressional, and a host of other "restored" courses.
You don't happen to have any original pictures of the 4th green in your bag of tricks, do you? ;D
-
Tom MacWood,
I thought you stated, in another thread, that GCGC wasn't a good golf course around 1900, and yet, Charles Blair MacDonald claims in 1904 and possibly earlier that GCGC is amongst the best in America.
With respect to the pictures of Hollywood, they are taken from different angles, some 180 degrees removed from the others.
Why haven't you published the picture of the 7th green immediately before Rees began his project.
Or, would that undermine your entire argument.
The surroundings at the 7th green at Hollywood as reflected in the early pictures you posted is nowhere near what the surroundings looked like immediately prior to Rees's undertaking the project.
Also, look at the dramatic differences in the bunkering and the mounding between the two B&W photos. Clear evidence that the golf course had been altered. How convenient of you not to point that out. Pay particular attention to the right side bunker that appears in the second B&W and compare that bunker to the vast sprawling bunker that appears in the first B&W. Looks like someone, probably before Rees was born, removed it and replaced it with a single bunker, doesn't it. How did your keen eye miss that and other pertinent details.
On the B&W picture you posted that you say is prior to Rees, tell us, by how many years is it prior to Ree's involvement.
Your statement would deliberately mislead viewers into thinking this is how the green looked just before Rees started his work, and you know that's a clear misrepresentation on your part.
Your intellectual dishonesty is rapidly deteriorating.
I guess, Desperate men do desperate things.
And that you'll go to any lengths, even being disengenuous and dishonest, in an attempt to make your case.
Again, what's the date of the last B&W photo ?
Mike Cirba,
Rather then jump on the bandwagon, study the two B&W photos which are taken from approximately the same angle.
The last color photo is taken from 180 degrees from those angles and the first photo is taken from a different angle at a vastly different distance. Notice the incredible number of changes have taken place to the areas surrounding the green.
Then ask Tom MacWood how he accounts for those changes.
Also, ask Tom Macwood what the date on the last B&W photo is, and how many years it's removed from Rees's project.
-
Pat
From Travis, Macdonald and Whigham's comments I think it is fair to say the state of golf architecture wasn't very good in America circa 1900. Comparatively speeking GCGC was only an average golf course...unless you are into geometric cross hazards and geomteric greens.
The first three pictures are taken from the same general direction. You can see the old 17th green in the background of the twwo B&W pictures. Do you see that large long mound in the background with what looks to be a door...you walked throught that opening from the 17th green to the 18th tee. The last color photo is taken from behind the green.
Do you like Rees's big lazy curves and mounding? Do you prefer it to Travis's work?
I'll see if I can find a picture of the 7th just prior to Rees. I'm not certain of the date of the 2nd B&W picture...the caption says shortly after Travis's redesign, but that is clearly not correct based upon the trees.
-
Patrick;
Do you still have that old aerial of Hollywood in its prime? It would be interesting to compare a modern aerial, if only from a two-dimensional shaping perspective.
No bandwagon hopper am I; I just know from much experience that Rees habitually puts his trademark style on course features, including Hollywood...I'm not even sure it's intentional.
Even though I agree with MacWood that the Rees designed changes on 14 are brilliant, I have a tough time believing that Walter Travis designed bunkers that look like this.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000000841.jpg)
-
Tom,
From Travis, Macdonald and Whigham's comments I think it is fair to say the state of golf architecture wasn't very good in America circa 1900. Comparatively speeking GCGC was only an average golf course...unless you are into geometric cross hazards and geomteric greens.
First you say GCGC wasn't good, then MacDonald says it was amongst the best in America, and not you're saying nothing was good in America. I happen to like geometric cross hazards, some of which still exist at GCGC and geometric greens, which I believe MacDonald designed at Chicago GC.[/color]
The first three pictures are taken from the same general direction.
The same general direction. You're kidding, right.
The B&W's are from very similar angles, just slightly different, front to back. And, you never answered the question about the dramatic differences in those two photos. Who made those changes, and when ?[/color]
You can see the old 17th green in the background of the twwo B&W pictures. Do you see that large long mound in the background with what looks to be a door...you walked throught that opening from the 17th green to the 18th tee.
I believe that mound is still there, covered with trees planted years and years ago. I'm not so sure you're correct about the door. A hedge was planted and the hedge had an arch you walked through to get directly to the 18th tee.
The angle of your picture would indicate the tee is far to the right of its recorded location, but, again, that could be the angle. The next time I go there, I'll look at it.[/color]
The last color photo is taken from behind the green.
I know that, and it presents a far different perspective and view then photos from the front of the green.[/color]
Mike Cirba,
I'm not saying I love everything about the work done at Hollwyood, But I do know what the directive from the membership was, and some of the restrictions Rees was under that prevented him from doing more restorative work.
It's unfair to show a picture from 1916-1920 and say that this is what the golf course looked like prior to Rees's work, and Tom MacWood knows that.[/color]
Do you like Rees's big lazy curves and mounding? Do you prefer it to Travis's work?
Another disengenuous question.
Show us pictures, taken from the same angles and distances, that were taken immeidiately before Rees began his work, not pictures taken 70 years earlier.
And, even in your B&W pictures, the course was already being altered by the membership, some 60-70 years ago.[/color]
I'll see if I can find a picture of the 7th just prior to Rees. I'm not certain of the date of the 2nd B&W picture...the caption says shortly after Travis's redesign, but that is clearly not correct based upon the trees.
Great, then compare that picture, before Rees began his work, to the B&W's you posted.[/color]
-
Tom Macwood with his claim that the pictures are the same general direction is as disengenious as Dugger showing pictures of the land surrounding the Rees course in Oregon. ;D
Mike Cirba-Maybe we should stick with Rees putting his trademark features on classic courses. Surely, you agree he can put his look on any modern course he likes. What classic courses have you seen that Rees put his trademark look on.
-
Hamilton;
Without wanting to get into a "yes he did/no he didn't" on various metropolitan courses he's worked at, let me just say that our group was able to pick out every bunker that Rees didn't renovate at Quaker Ridge.
-
Enough said about QR. I have never seen the course. How would you characterize his work at Bethpage and at Baltusrol? Can you comment on any other Metro courses?
-
Hamilton;
I have to run, so I'll give you my quick thought on his work at those two courses.
Philosophically and from a design intent standpoint of what's on the ground, I believe that the work is consistent with his belief that classic features need to be somewhat modernized to play challengingly for the professionals. Thus, bunkers were moved closer to greens, fairway bunkers were moved further out, etc.
At Baltusrol, in particular, I believe much more is going to be done in that regard. There are already brand new bunkers on the 18th hole.
Stylistically, I'm starting to believe he can't help himself, even when he tries to be 100% true to the original designer. His wavy, gravy lines and soft curves and mounding just betray him.
-
Pat
Lets face it, for whatever reason you've got a blind spot when it comes to Rees' style...I recall you arguing with someone about the Rees-ification at Quaker Ridge and Ridgewood....you just couldn't see it.
I said Emmet's original GCGC was average...the original Wheaton course was average too and I'm being generous in both cases.
Those mounds in the 7th fairway are original.
Hambone
The first three pictures are taken from the same general direction....I think what may be throwing you off is Rees' bunkering. You can see the mound with door (near the 17th green, which was directly behind the 7th green) in both B&W pictures and obviously the fairway in front of the green of the first color picture.
-
Tom,
Lets face it, for whatever reason you've got a blind spot when it comes to Rees' style...I recall you arguing with someone about the Rees-ification at Quaker Ridge and Ridgewood....you just couldn't see it.
That's interesting, but not accurate.
It was Paul Turner, I believe, and we were discussing the bunkering at Ridgewood and Bethpage.[/color]
I said Emmet's original GCGC was average...the original Wheaton course was average too and I'm being generous in both cases.
I'm sure you're eminently more qualified then Charles Blair MacDonald who differs with you regarding GCGC. But, what does he know, he was only a member.[/color]
Those mounds in the 7th fairway are original.
All of them ?[/color]
Hambone
The first three pictures are taken from the same general direction....I think what may be throwing you off is Rees' bunkering. You can see the mound with door (near the 17th green, which was directly behind the 7th green) in both B&W pictures and obviously the fairway in front of the green of the first color picture.
-
Here you go Pat. This is 7th green just prior to Rees, obviously taken from the back. What are you looking for or attempting to prove? Whatever you are trying to prove it seems clear he didn't do a very good job of emulating the original Travis look but on the other hand did do a very good job of emulaing the Rees Jones look.
(http://homepage.mac.com/tmacwood/.Pictures/hollywoodPR.jpg)
Here is an old image of the 'doorway' through the mound by the 17th green.
(http://homepage.mac.com/tmacwood/.Pictures/tunnell.jpg)
As far as I could tell yes all of the mounds you asked about in the 7th fairway are original...then again I didn't spend much time studying them. Why...was Brian Schneider right?
-
Some links to updated photos, as you can see we've laid a lot of sod and much of the shaping is complete:
#7
right greenside
[img.]
http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3A8%3B523232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A34943%3B9ot1lsi[/img.]
back left greenside
[img.]
http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3A8%3B523232%7Ffp47%3Dwp%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A34974%3C3wp1lsi[/img.]
# 8
view from tee
[img.]
http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3A8%3B523232%7Ffp47%3Dwp%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497532wp1lsi[/img.]
view of 8th green while walking off toward 9th tee
[img.]
http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3A8%3B523232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dwp%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497574wp1lsi[/img.]
# 9 tee shot
[img.]
http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3A8%3B523232%7Ffp46%3Dwp%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497553wp1lsi[/img.]
cross bunker
[img.]
http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3A8%3B523232%7Ffp45%3Dwp%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497545wp1lsi[/img.]
bunkers down right side of 9, pinching inward toward middle of fairway, they run from about 130 out to greenside
[img.]
http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3A8%3B523232%7Ffp4%3Evq%3D323%3B%3E7%3A6%3E747%3EWSNRCG%3D32327943%3A664%3Avq0mrj[/img.]
from this view you can see the center of the green, in line with the chestnut tree, about 1/2 the green is now a forced carry over the bunkering right and any pin on the right half of the green will be semi-blind
[img.]
http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3A8%3B523232%7Ffp4%3Evq%3D323%3B%3E7%3A6%3E747%3EWSNRCG%3D32327943%3A6656vq0mrj[/img.]
this is actually a view looking backwards from the 7th tee down the 12th hole, the 6th green is directly to the right and the 11th tee complex is visible in the far left corner, this gives a good sense of how we've recaptured the open flow of Emmet's layout
[img.]
http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3A8%3B523232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dwp%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497577wp1lsi[/img.]
-
We'll that sucked, can someone tell me how to get the photo to appear as opposed to just the link.
Is it me or is posting photos ridiculously hard? >:( >:( >:(
-
Mike Cirba, you said that Rees moved the fairways bunkers "out" at BPB; do you mean farther out from the tee, which I guess means the tees were moved farther back, or farther out from the fairway edges, which I guess means the fairways were cut more narrow. Did he really build a bunch of new fairway bunkers? I think the most ghastly photo of BPB set up for the Open was the 18th fairway with those bunkers 15 yds out in the rough.
-
Tom MacWood,
The question is, what are you attempting to hide ?
Who planted those clumps of grass all along the perimeter of # 7 ? And when ?
Why don't you post a picture from the same angle, not one from behind the green that doesn't reveal the look of the left and right greenside bunkering, the bunkering you were so anxious to post. Also, why is a recent photo, one you said was taken right before Rees did the work, in B&W.
Post the color photo, for intellectual honesty's sake, and post it from the same angle as the others, from in front of the green, not a new angle from the back right of the green.
Brian Schneider was wrong, Rees didn't do any of that mounding.
But, you didn't answer my question. Was all of the mounding on the right of # 7 Travis's original work, or was some of it added subsequent to his work ?
You claim to be a great researcher, but you never answered the question regarding the two original B&W photos you posted.
What was the date of the second B&W photo, and
Who made the changes to the 7th green surrounds that appear in the 2nd B&W photo.
It would appear that someone was altering the golf course 70 years before Rees arrived.
-
Pat
Are you testing me? The Travis course had love grass, in fact Dick Wilson liked it so much he took some of it to Deepdale. I don't like the grass they have on the course today, it must be a different strain because it doesn't look like any love grass I have seen (or anything like the grass in old photos)...IMO it looks stupid and unnatural....poodle-like. Don't tell me Rees planted it.
Are these questions designed to trip me up or rehabilitate your floundering Rees apologizing stance?
What are you trying to prove with these constant demands that I come up with more pictures...why don't you send to me some pictures...I'll post them? Or why don't just make your point, whatever it is, about the 7th and Rees' involvement? Did he restore the hole to Travis's original character? Did he leave his own stylistic mark on the hole?
You are correct about the course being altered long before Rees arrived, there is no disputing that...in your opinion is that a good reason for you defensive stance and excusing his recent transgressions?
-
Tom MacWood,
Pat
Are you testing me?
Absolutely.
You continually make wild statements and draw false conclusions about Hollywood. You post two photos of #7 taken some time ago, and a recent photo of # 7, presenting the issue as if the golf course just prior to Rees's project looked like it did in the B&W photos, photos which already reflect changes to the golf course.
Then when asked to post of photo of # 7 just prior ot Rees, you post a photo from an angle that doesn't show the bunkering you complained about, and you post it in black and white. That's disengenuous and intellectually dishonest and you know it.
Answer the questions, don't avoid them.
You're the research expert, you know the answers but don't want to respond in an honest fashion because those answers defeat your argument. You would have the viewers believe that the golf course looked as Travis left it, just before Rees undertook his project, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Had you ever personally seen how the golf course looked immediately prior to Rees's project ?[/color]
The Travis course had love grass, in fact Dick Wilson liked it so much he took some of it to Deepdale. I don't like the grass they have on the course today, it must be a different strain because it doesn't look like any love grass I have seen (or anything like the grass in old photos)...IMO it looks stupid and unnatural....poodle-like. Don't tell me Rees planted it.
This is exactly what I mean. You're dishonest.
You show a picture, and say that this is how # 7 looked prior to Rees, and now you insinuate that Rees planted the grass, knowing full well that he didn't. But tell me Tom, when was it planted, and by whom ?[/color=green]
Are these questions designed to trip me up or rehabilitate your floundering Rees apologizing stance?
No, they're meant to expose you for being disengenuous and intellectually dishonest.
Show a picture of # 7 from the same angle just prior to Rees's project and let the viewers see what had already happened to # 7 before Rees set foot on the property.
Again, which members at Hollywood support your view of restoring the golf course as Travis left it ?
And, what's the date on the second B&W, and who altered the golf course as evidenced in that picture, when compared to the first B&W one ?
If you don't know the answers to the questions I asked, just say so. And, if you do know the answers, post them.
Stop ducking the questions, especially when you know that your answers, your own admissions will undermine your position.
Try being honest and fair, it's not that hard.[/color]
What are you trying to prove with these constant demands that I come up with more pictures...why don't you send to me some pictures...I'll post them? Or why don't just make your point, whatever it is, about the 7th and Rees' involvement? Did he restore the hole to Travis's original character? Did he leave his own stylistic mark on the hole?
Tom, they're not demands. They're questions, requests and statements, the answers to which will reveal how intellectually dishonest you've been regarding Hollywood and Rees's work there.
You know my point and so does everybody else.
Why, when cornered, do you always try to weasel out of your predicament, one you put yourself into with outrageous claims false conclusions and presentations, and half truths, by deflecting the issue, avoiding the questions, and changing the subject.
Try being honest with everyone, including yourself.[/color]
You are correct about the course being altered long before Rees arrived, there is no disputing that...in your opinion is that a good reason for you defensive stance and excusing his recent transgressions?
Be specific Tom, what transgressions ?
Could you identify them on a hole by hole, feature by feature basis ?
And, don't go back 70 years, go back to just prior to Rees's work, to what the golf course looked and played like.[/color]
Mike Cirba,
The aerial photo you reference, the one I had Tommy Naccarato post, is a copy I had made of the photo that hangs in the Men's locker room, on the wall just to the left of the exit to the golf course. That photo is huge.
Why am I telling you the details about the photo's location.
Because it shows that the members were keenly aware of what the golf course looked like. They are reminded of how it looked every time they go out that door. The HUGE photo is starring them right in the face, day in and day out. Every day of the year.
YET, being keenly aware of what the golf course looked like, and what it looked like pre Rees, the members determined that they didn't want to restore it to the golf course as reflected in the photographic image that hangs on the wall right by the exit door, the one they see every day.
I would have liked to have seen it restored, but, I wasn't asked to vote. Did you and Tom MacWood receive your ballots ? [/color]
-
Pat
You are grasping for straws. I'm tired of arguing with someone who refuses to answer the simple and primary questions about the 7th...today does it accurately reflect Travis's original design or does it reflect Rees' architetural design characteristics or perhaps a little of both. I'll give you credit you are a loyal friend of Rees...willing to go down with the ship.
How about that Seawane?!
-
Here's an attempt at larger pics:
Some updated photos, as you can see we've laid a lot of sod and much of the shaping is complete:
#7
right greenside
[img.]
http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A34943%3B9ot1lsi [/img.]
back left greenside
[img.] http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A34974%3C3ot1lsi [/img.]
[img.] http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A34974%3C8ot1lsi [/img.]
This is a view of the 8th green from the 7th green, before the trees were removed the 8th green was barely visible
[img.] http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497572ot1lsi [/img.]
# 8
view from tee
[img.] http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497532ot1lsi [/img.]
view of 8th green while walking off toward 9th tee
[img.] http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp4%3Enu%3D323%3B%3E7%3A6%3E747%3EWSNRCG%3D32327943%3A662%3Bnu0mrj [/img.]
same view from newly carved walking path through mounding (over, not under) from 8 green to 9 tee
[img.] http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp4%3Enu%3D323%3B%3E7%3A6%3E747%3EWSNRCG%3D32327943%3A6665nu0mrj [/img.]
back greenside bunker
[img.] http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497537ot1lsi [/img.]
# 9 tee shot
[img.] http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497553ot1lsi [/img.]
cross bunker
[img.] http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497545ot1lsi [/img.]
bunkers down right side of 9, pinching inward toward middle of fairway, they run from about 130 out to greenside
[img.] http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp45%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497559ot1lsi [/img.]
from this view you can see the center of the green, in line with the chestnut tree not originally planted but when it’s in bloom it’s magnificent, this tree is not likely to be removed, about 1/2 the green is now a forced carry over the bunkering right and any pin on the right half of the green will be semi-blind
[img.] http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp4%3Enu%3D323%3B%3E7%3A6%3E747%3EWSNRCG%3D32327943%3A665%3Anu0mrj [/img.]
different angle of same
[img.] http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497565ot1lsi [/img.]
this is actually a view looking backwards from the 7th tee down the 12th hole (the back tee is shared for both holes) the 6th left greenside bunker is directly to the right and the 11th tee complex is visible in the far left corner, this gives a good sense of how we've recaptured the open flow of Emmet's layout and hopefully have greatly enhanced the “walk in the park” element.
[img.] http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497577ot1lsi [/img.]
-
"One last time with feeling!"
Some updated photos, as you can see we've laid a lot of sod and much of the shaping is complete:
#7
right greenside
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A34943%3B9ot1lsi)
back left greenside
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A34974%3C3ot1lsi)
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A34974%3C8ot1lsi)
This is a view of the 8th green from the 7th green, before the trees were removed the 8th green was barely visible
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497572ot1lsi)
# 8
view from tee
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497532ot1lsi)
view of 8th green while walking off toward 9th tee
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp4%3Enu%3D323%3B%3E7%3A6%3E747%3EWSNRCG%3D32327943%3A662%3Bnu0mrj)
same view from newly carved walking path through mounding (over, not under) from 8 green to 9 tee
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp4%3Enu%3D323%3B%3E7%3A6%3E747%3EWSNRCG%3D32327943%3A6665nu0mrj)
back greenside bunker
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497537ot1lsi)
# 9 tee shot
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp46%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497553ot1lsi)
cross bunker
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497545ot1lsi)
bunkers down right side of 9, pinching inward toward middle of fairway, they run from about 130 out to greenside
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp45%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497559ot1lsi)
from this view you can see the center of the green, in line with the chestnut tree not originally planted but when it’s in bloom it’s magnificent, this tree is not likely to be removed, about 1/2 the green is now a forced carry over the bunkering right and any pin on the right half of the green will be semi-blind
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp4%3Enu%3D323%3B%3E7%3A6%3E747%3EWSNRCG%3D32327943%3A665%3Anu0mrj)
different angle of same
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp47%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497565ot1lsi)
this is actually a view looking backwards from the 7th tee down the 12th hole (the back tee is shared for both holes) the 6th left greenside bunker is directly to the right and the 11th tee complex is visible in the far left corner, this gives a good sense of how we've recaptured the open flow of Emmet's layout and hopefully have greatly enhanced the “walk in the park” element.
(http://images.mysticcolorlab.com/3424%3B3%3B923232%7Ffp3%3B%3Dot%3E232%3C%3D897%3D838%3DXROQDF%3E23236%3A3497577ot1lsi)
-
Thanks Tom.
Okay, so I've saved a form word document to guide me through going forward, sorry for the multiple efforts I think I've got it now.
-
Jason
A very bold look you are creating there...somewhat remeniscent of Loxahatchee.
-
What are those photographs Jason posted of?
-
Tom;
They are the ongoing renovations at Seawane. As Jason mentioned, they are not intended to be a true restoration, but more of a tribute to our boy Devereaux Emmett's style.
I'm quite sure Emmett would have rather fancied the sharply upward-rising protrusions bulging forth, exploding in torrents of architectural bliss. ;D
Jason;
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
-
I'm quite sure Emmett would have rather fancied the sharply upward-rising protrusions bulging forth, exploding in torrents of architectural bliss. ;D
Jason;
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
Mike:
Since this was a sympathetic renovation we made sure to keep Mr. Emmet's tendencies in mind, thanks for noticing the tribute. ;D
-
I'm no authority on Dev Emmet but let me just say looking at those posted photos---I cannot believe my eyes!
-
TP
Please elaborate.
-
You are grasping for straws.
No Tom, it's you who refuses to answer questions and grasps for anything to divert attention from your disengenuous attempts to misrepresent the hole in question and the Hollywood project.[/color]
I'm tired of arguing with someone who refuses to answer the simple and primary questions about the 7th...today does it accurately reflect Travis's original design or does it reflect Rees' architetural design characteristics or perhaps a little of both.
It more accurately reflects Travis's principles.
Rees's work changed little about the hole, as it existed prior to Rees, and its play.
But, you wouldn't know that because you never saw or played it just prior to Rees's work.
Could you please tell us, the date on the 2nd B&W photo, and answer the simple questions I asked ?[/color]
I'll give you credit you are a loyal friend of Rees. .willing to go down with the ship.
I have criticisms of Rees's work, but, when he's unfairly attacked, and gross misrepresentations, such as the ones you made, are presented as fact, I'm going to defend him and point out the error in the gross misrepresentations and try to present or determine the real facts, and not rely on your disengenuous smear campaign.
That's the HONEST thing to do, irrespective of friendship.
[/color]
How about that Seawane?!
I'd rather reserve judgement until I see it for myself.
I first played there in the 60's.
I'm anxious to see what the finished product looks like, and I'm anxious to find out what the members intended to accomplish when they undertook this project.
It may not be what I would have done, but again, they didn't send me an absentee ballot.
I'll just have to wait until next spring to answer your question honestly.[/color]
-
Tom Macwood-
Pat Mucci is also friends with a lot of guys on this site and that certainly has not prevented him from offering his HONEST opinion when he may disagree. Why would you imply that somehow a friendship with Rees would cloud his judgement? He is just preventing UNFAIR,UNWARRENTED, criticism from someone who does not have nor does he care to have all the facts.
-
I'm having a hard time seeing what the big deal is between those B&Ws and those color photos of #7.
"TP
Please elaborate."
John:
Sure---as I was saying to Mike Cirba a couple of days ago---I can see Devie Emmet dabbling in a little early Gay Architecture but I never figured he did anything that looked like he was on a triple dose of LSD!
;)
-
Pat
I always enjoy it when you engage your schizophrenic friend.
-
I never figured he did anything that looked like he was on a triple dose of LSD!
;)
Tom:
"Welcome to the nineties Mr. Banks." (extra credit for those naming the movie, the speaking actor and the actor playing Mr. Banks).
Seriously Tom, we never claimed to be doing an Emmet restoration and our goal has always been to revive the links character of the course while keeping Emmet's routing and green surfaces because they are both fantastic. Otherwise, we've literally re-built the course. I've been perfectly clear about that on all of my posts.
The last three groups of holes (two years ago 10-14, last year 6 and 15 and this year 7-9) have been increasingly more dramatic in style than the first two groups that we did. I think you'll find the flow works, however, because it really catches and keeps your attention through the middle of the round. Keep in mind also that the land Emmet worked with was virtually unencumbered on all water side property boundaries, thus, even from the 1940 aerial I have it is clear that in 1927 one had clear vistas of the dunes and Reynolds Channel from nearly every hole. Thus, while Emmet's bunkering was naturally understated (IMO) especially compared to MacKenzie's flashier style, for instance, Emmet could easily rely upon the enchanting links land for much of the course's interest.
We no longer have that option as Hewlett Harbor has grown up around much of Seawane and our water views are limited to the channels that cut through and border the course. Part of the challenge that we faced, I believe, was recreating the wow factor with playable ground versus amazing views.
In addition, for right or wrong the larger mounding that you see in holes 7-9 is for protection where large trees or groups of smaller trees were removed. For better or worse we've got more lawsuits to think about today than Emmet had in 1927 and so long as Seawane stays in the outing business protection must be a consideration.
I think you will find that holes 7-9 will have a taste of Whistling Straights, which, from the several times I've walked the holes works dramatically well.
Lastly, you will not see this in your face bold style dominate throughout the course. For instance, you'll see more subtle bunkering on 1 and 18 which take us from and return us to the clubhouse.
Overall, I think this is for two reasons: 1) we did the project over a 5 year span and we developed our ideas and skills over that time; and 2) certain parts of the property are just more interesting than others (for instance, little was done to 3, 4, 13 and 16 where the character of the holes are defined primarily by the channels in play. vs. 6, 7, 9 and 15, which are on much less interesting land.
-
Tom,
Pat
I always enjoy it when you engage your schizophrenic friend.
The betting window remains perpetually open.
And, the odds remain extremely high.
As does the minimum bet.
This is one of the problems you have,
Your research is good, your conclusions flawed.
I have never personally communicated with HBH and don't know who he is, although I could hazard a guess or two.
Last night I gave some additional thought to your question on Seawane, which was framed in the context of the pictures that were posted. To be honest, the work, as presented in the pictures did look ..... radical.
As I commented, I would like to see the completed work for myself, and I'd like to learn, preferably through documentation, what the membership wanted to accomplish.
It appears evident that restoration was not their goal.
As you know, I prefer restoration, in concept, but, I'm not a member, and I'd hazard a guess that I'd be in the great minority if I were a member and advocated a true restoration.
I've notice more and more clubs that restore certain features and then alter others.
When I first came on to this site I advocated clubs getting second and third opinions, just like we do for our own good health. Recently, I advocated eliminating compensation based on project costs. I think, between the two, that you'd come closer to restorations then alterations, but, then again, if the membership wants to alter or disfigure their golf course, I may not agree with it, but, they're going to do what THEY want. I've seen it recently at my home club in NJ. We should have restored our 15th hole, which was ruined years ago.
Instead, we're altering it, probably for the better, but a return to the original would have been so much better.
Members today, are so far removed from their golf course's origins, that the original course has no architectural relevance. You may not want to hear that, but, that's been the case in the majority of situations I've been privy to.
One can only hope that the compromises being made will include restoration efforts on some of the holes that were altered since inception.
If you understood how these project come into being, it would help you understand why changes are made and why restoration isn't the goal of every golf course, classic or modern.[/color]
-
Jason:
Thanks for the post and the interesting explanation of things to do with the architecture you're doing. Please understand that while I find the architecture I can see in those photos a massive exaggeration, I do recognize that sometimes there're other purposes and points to do these things. If you're trying to hide something obnoxious looking off-site, minimize liablity or whatever etc.
I don't know Sewane, never been there, but I do recognize that some of those early architects and what they did may seem (at least to me) both rudimentary and sometimes somewhat shocking looking. I accept things like that as examples of the way things were---eg, just part of the interesting evolution of golf architecture over the last 100 or more years.
I have no problem with the fact that Coore and Crenshaw purposely created bunker surround shapes, in an architectural context at Hidden Creek, that may be more rudimentary than what they otherwise do. They did it as a tribute to the early Heathland architecture. I have no problem with JH Taylor's "alpinization" or "Mid Surrey mounds" experiment. I find it to be an evolutionary curiosity and probably a good thing for that! I have no problem with the bunker sets that Ian Andrews did at Scranton because they were representative or a restoration of what Travis did there.
Primarily, I'm interested in the evolution of all this---why some things happened in various times, how and for what reasons.
-
Primarily, I'm interested in the evolution of all this---why some things happened in various times, how and for what reasons.
Tom:
I agree and I think that two major influences on the work we've done at Seawane have been:
1) the work of Dye, and other modern architects, that have inspired an otherwise flatish piece of land (the extreme example being Whistling Straights) in combination with the current membership's perception that we had a flat piece of relatively uninteresting land besides the water influenced holes. This perception is certainly a product of the impact that the bordering neighborhood had (unfortunately, the club never owned this bordering land). I think this perception was also exacerbated by the negative impact to the property over time from the tree over growth. Which, ironically, this perception is the main reason why thousands of trees were planted in the first place. In retrospect, ideally we would have first removed all 4,000 plus trees and played the course for a season before doing anything else, but we're a club not a GCA experiment :( .
2) the second major influence is that since we are not the original membership that retained Emmet and since so much time has passed even if we were, only a small percentage of us hold a strong sense of historical value for what Emmet did, and, to a person, we're all actively involved in the current project in some fashion. In spirit, our membership, including myself, wants a course and club for the future, not one of the past, and so I believe that played a role in deciding to go the renovation route.
I've said before that I would have preferred as detailed a restoration as possible, accounting for gains in distance with bunker placement, but I don't think that would have been any better a product than what's currently on the ground. Again, however, I think things would have been done differently if we had the same land that Emmet had.
One thing that I've learned through this project is that unless a course has immense historical value, e.g. ANGC, Pine Valley, GCGC, National (no, I have no East Coast bias ;) ) change, even radical change, can be a very good thing. Not trying to state the obvious, I think that the ultimate architecturial test for a course like Seawane, which I will qualify as having already been radically changed by external forces over time and where substantial restoration can't replicate original playing conditions, is whether you want to head to #1 tee after walking off #18 green.
We now pass that test with flying colors (IMO).
-
Jason:
Are you a member of this club or part of the architectural team or both?
-
Jason;
Was there any consideration as to the impact of the changes to ongoing maintenance costs?
Would you anticipate that the course will be more or less costly to maintain, given the changes?
Thanks!
-
Jason:
Are you a member of this club or part of the architectural team or both?
I am a club member on the greens committee. My voice has been solicited and heard throughout the project. I'm also the youngest full member of the club so my prespective has fortunately been sought.
-
Was there any consideration as to the impact of the changes to ongoing maintenance costs?
Would you anticipate that the course will be more or less costly to maintain, given the changes?
First answer yes and second answer I dont know.
Maintenance considerations were a factor. We've installed a new drainage and irrigation system as we've gone so I believe the concept of those mechanical improvements was a long term cost saver. However, by all the tree removal and land reclaimation we added playable square footage and added a ton of bunkers, so there is more surface to mow and more bunkers to take care of. Most of the fescued mounds and other fescue areas are, however, low maintenance so in the end I'm not sure what the anticipated costs are relative to before.
-
Was there any consideration as to the impact of the changes to ongoing maintenance costs?
Mike,
I will add that overall, the costs of the project have been and are considered a major long term investment in the future of the club, separating ourselves from other area clubs. Therefore, even if maintenance costs rise significantly it'll be worth it. We're already seeing an improvement and long term prospects are quite good.
-
Thanks, Jason...it's interesting and refreshing to hear maintenance costs discussed in a long-term, financial viability of the club perspective. I think a lot of clubs tend to be like stockbrokers and only focus on the next quarter's results.
Since you mentioned bunkers, do you know how many there are (will be) overall once the project is completed? Roughly how does that compare to what was there before.
-
Since you mentioned bunkers, do you know how many there are (will be) overall once the project is completed? Roughly how does that compare to what was there before.
From the 1940 aerial I just rough counted 136 bunkers, so figure 150.
I know that we've got about 60 on #s 9 and 15 alone. So while I don't know, it's surely going to be closer to 200 (I'll try a count soon and post results) plus we've added some very large bunkers, down both sides of 12 for instance, so we've drastically increased bunker footage. Interestly, however, the 1940 aerial shows more sandy washed out areas, which is now rough in many places, so all in all I imagine the sand views (for lack of a better phrase) are probably about the same, this does not include the lost views of the bondary dunes of course. For instance, down the left side of 16 is a channel and on the other side of the channel are currently a series of waterfront homes. The 1940 aerial shows a mass of flowing sand dunes where the houses are and these dunes extend ten times the width of the 16th fairway all the way to the Bay/Reynolds Channel. So while the on course sand may be similar or even greater than original, the open sand washed feeling is significantly less.
:'(
-
Jason,
Can you post the 1940 aerial ?
-
Jason,
Can you post the 1940 aerial ?
Pat:
I don't have an electronic version and I'm not sure if an electronic version exists.
-
Pat & Jason
Craig Disher posted a portion of the old aerial on a pervious thread, perhaps he could post it.
-
I wanted bring this back up to see if Craig D. might have a Seawane aerial in his archive. I'm curious to see what the Emmet course was like.
-
Tom:
If Craig has one that he can post, and if he is willing, that would be great. However, you can always come out to play next year and we can take a detailed gander at the one I've got AFTER the round ;)
Jason
-
Jason
I have no immediate plans to be in NY any time soon. I don't think the aerial would prejudice anyone...certainly no more than the pictures you've posted of the new course would prejudice. GCA is about sharing information and I think the aerial might help us learn a little more about Emmet. Did you know Emmet's brother was one of the original investors of the project?
-
Tom:
Relax my friend, as I've stated I don't have a copy of the aerial that I can post. I'm also not sure if Craig does, he may only have hard copies. Why don't you IM Craig and ask.
When you make it to SW I'll let you walk around with the old aerial as you play.
Cheers,
Jason
-
Here's the 1940 aerial of Emmet's Seawane.
(http://mysite.verizon.net/vze7zuyh/seawane40.JPG)
-
Craig:
Many thanks!!
Jason
-
Jason,
Is the routing as depicted in Craig's 1940 aerial the exact same routing that Emmett left on opening day ?
-
If you look carefully, from the air, some of that curiously stylistic Emmett bunkering is bold, boisterous, bursting...almost phallic in nature. ;) ;D
Seriously, that's one cool aerial. Thanks for sharing, Craig.
-
Is the routing as depicted in Craig's 1940 aerial the exact same routing that Emmett left on opening day ?
Pat,
While I can't say with absolute certainty, I believe it is and have not heard any information to think otherwise.
The routing shown in the 1940 aerial is what is on the ground today.
-
Jason,
What about the land to the right of # 16, between the water and the road ?
-
Jason and Craig
Thanks for posting the picture. I see what you mean by the site changing over the years....it really was a natural raw site in 1940.
I recall Daniel Wexler making a distinction between Emmet's work pre- and post- his partnership with Alfred Tull. Tull introduced a more irregular bunker style...this course appears to be with Tull.
-
Tom MacWood,
Could you post some pictures of Emmett's bunkers and Tull's bunkers at Seawane so that we can see the distinction ?
-
Pat
You won't find a contrast at Seawane, but during Emmet's career his bunkering became more free form in the late twenties.
-
Pat
You won't find a contrast at Seawane, but during Emmet's career his bunkering became more free form in the late twenties.
Then how can you say that Seawane appears to be with Tull ?[/color]
-
Pat
Because of the different bunker style.
-
Tom,
Pomonok was an Emmet course built in 1921, 3 years before Tull joined him (according to C&W). The bunkers in this aerial (1938 - I'm making the assumtion that the course wasn't significantly altered since it was built) show a free-form style similar to those at Seawane.
If there's no evidence that Tull worked at Pomonok after it was built, it seems to me that the bunker style you attribute to Tull's influence might already have been Emmet's in the early 20s.
(http://mysite.verizon.net/vze7zuyh/pomo.JPG)
-
Tom MacWood,
Because of the different bunker style.
And what was the difference in their bunker styles ?
Was Emmett so architecturally limited that he was confined to one style ?
If Seawane was opened in 1927 and Tull joined Emmett in 1924, your theory would be that in the short period of 18 months or so, Emmett totally changed his philosophy on bunker design to conform to that of Tull's, despite Emmett's considerable, long established, success and large body of work prior to 1924-7 ?
The conclusions you jump to are WILD, especially when you consider your lack of specific, supporting documentation.[/color]
-
What about the land to the right of # 16, between the water and the road ?
Homes, bulkheaded on the canal and homes across the street on Reynolds Channel. I would have loved to stand on 16 tee when this aerial was taken, the dunes with water in the distance would have been an awesome sight. Plus I'm sure the wind would have been a bigger factor.
Same thing happened across the canal on #13, that is now the village of East Rockaway.
If I only had a time machine . . .
-
Craig
Like I've said before...I'm no Emmet expert. Do you disagree with Daniel Wexler's assesment that Emmet's bunkering style changed after Tull became more involved in the firms designs?
Pat
Does having a unique style imply you are architecturally limited? Rees Jones has a unique style....ah, never mind.
-
Tom,
Daniel certainly has more information than I do to support that view. I'm only speculating based on aerials from the late 30s that I've seen - and what I've seen of Tull's solo work.
Emmet's work that pre-dates Tull's joining him in 1924 does show an evolution in style. One of the earliest I've seen is Cherry Valley (1916). The bunkers there look very primitive - long, thin, and in some cases perpindicular to the line of play. But moving ahead to Rockaway HC (1919) and Old Westbury, the style becomes similar to Seawane and Pomonok (1921) with the curlicue outlines, natural shapes and frequent use of mounding within the bunkers. His work at Nassau (1927 with Tull assisting) looks like a natural extension of his earlier bunker work done before Tull.
(http://mysite.verizon.net/vze7zuyh/nassbunk.JPG)
There are two Tull courses around DC built in the eary 50s. I can't see any similarity between them and any of the Emmet/Tull courses. Perhaps Tull moved away from the Emmet style in the 50s towards something "modern." But I'd feel more confident that he influenced Emmet if there were courses in that style that he designed on his own.
-
Jason,
In the 1940 photo it looks like that area has had work done to it.
Does the club have any records/documents/photos that you could review ?
Tom MacWood,
You didn't answer the question.
And again atttempt to divert the focus by bringing up Rees Jones.
How can you conclude the Seawane is Tull's work and not Emmett's ?
-
Craig
Are those bunkers at Nassau the work of Emmet or Strong?
Pat
Seawane was designed by Emmet.
-
Tom,
I believe they are Emmet's. C&W says that Strong added 3 holes in 1924. There is a 1915 drawing of Nassau in Quirin's book which shows a course very different than the one I've seen in the 1930s aerials. If C&W is right, the modifications Strong made would have been to that course and the 1930s aerials would show Emmet's course which was designed in 1927.
-
Craig Disher,
There are some wonderful pictures of Nassau hanging in the clubhouse, including a spectacular early aerial. If I can get a copy I'll get it to you.
It's hard to believe how many of these great old courses went through the disfiguration process.
-
Craig
Not to get off the subject, but Nassua is a golf course I've never quite figured out who did what and when. C&W says that Emmet redesigned the course (or created a new course ) in 1927. The MGA book written by Quirren says Emmet remodeled the course in 1920, and then Herbert Strong in 1925.
IYO does the last picture you posted look more like Emmet or Strong?
-
"Craig
Not to get off the subject, but Nassua is a golf course I've never quite figured out who did what and when."
Tom MacWood:
Maybe you haven't figured it out yet but something tells me if you happen to find some old newspaper article somewhere (that people have seen for years) that mentions one of your favorite architects was somewhere in the vicinity at some point I'm sure you will figure out who did what and when! ;)
-
In the 1940 photo it looks like that area has had work done to it.
Does the club have any records/documents/photos that you could review ?
Pat,
Do you mean the area right of 16 and right of the canal when you look at the aerial (for those who don't know the layout 16 tee is just on the lower half of the photo after crossing the road and the second shot is played over the canal.)
This land that looks in the 1940 photo as dune washout was never, as far as I know, club property.
I will ask around and see what I can dig up.
-
Tom,
Daniel certainly has more information than I do to support that view. I'm only speculating based on aerials from the late 30s that I've seen - and what I've seen of Tull's solo work.
Emmet's work that pre-dates Tull's joining him in 1924 does show an evolution in style. One of the earliest I've seen is Cherry Valley (1916). The bunkers there look very primitive - long, thin, and in some cases perpindicular to the line of play. But moving ahead to Rockaway HC (1919) and Old Westbury, the style becomes similar to Seawane and Pomonok (1921) with the curlicue outlines, natural shapes and frequent use of mounding within the bunkers. His work at Nassau (1927 with Tull assisting) looks like a natural extension of his earlier bunker work done before Tull.
(http://mysite.verizon.net/vze7zuyh/nassbunk.JPG)
There are two Tull courses around DC built in the eary 50s. I can't see any similarity between them and any of the Emmet/Tull courses. Perhaps Tull moved away from the Emmet style in the 50s towards something "modern." But I'd feel more confident that he influenced Emmet if there were courses in that style that he designed on his own.
Craig-
I'm not trying to divert the original intent of the post here, but stylistically, were Tull's bunkers a bit more in an amoeba shape? That is what I seem to remember from my limited experience with Tull courses.
Thanks!!
DRB
-
Jason,
I mean the area between the inlet that comes off of the narrow canal and the road as you look at the aerial.
It's a penisula and it looks as if some work was done or perhaps excavations were undertaken.
How is it that the club didn't acquire that property ?
-
Pat,
We'll have to look at it in person.
-
Craig
Is there any way you can post some more images of Nassau...perhaps on its own thread? Based Pat's descritpion and your picture I'm anxious to see more.
-
Tom MacWood,
Abandoned footpads for some of the features still remain.
I saw the photos after I had played the golf course.
I would like to review them again, and then tour the golf course to search for more remnants.
-
Pat
I took a very quick look around Nassau this summer...it appears trees have taken over as well. It also seemed to be somewhat flat from my quick look...which might explain the agressive bunkering scheme.
-
Tom MacWood,
It's got some nice rollilng terrain with elevation changes.
The picture in the ante room in the locker area is eye opening.
-
Jason
Who is the designer (or designers) of your new course? Would it be a mistake for a student of golf architecture to come to Seawane to see the work of Devereux Emmet?
The consulting architect is Kay, not sure if that's your question.
Much of the actual product on the ground has been a collaberation of sorts as the boys were digging in the dirt.
. . .
In light of our recent education from Bill Coore, I've revived an old post to state:
it's now evident to me that much GCA on all levels occurs by the guys pushing the dirt around and it was quite impressive to hear Bill say as much re: C&C projects. These un-named shapers are the guts of GCA, I've been fortunate to meet one through our project at Seawane.