Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Geoff_Shackelford on September 12, 2002, 08:08:00 AM
-
We've seen many of the supposedly "elite" clubs display unfathomable stupidity with regard to their golf courses in recent years. People pay a lot of money and they put up with a lot of banal cocktail party conversation, all to get into these old clubs with classic designs. Then, once there, they seek to change the course, to leave their stamp, all because their sense of self is so sadly inflated or they're just uninformed enough to listen to the USGA.
So I guess I'm wondering these days, is the membership at The National Golf Links going this way too?
Do they understand that superintendent Karl Olson restored their course after years of neglect, and what that restored architecture means to the prestige of their club?
Something tells me the answer is leaning toward "no," but I will try to remain hopeful that I'm wrong.
-
Did something happen?
-
Karl Olson has moved to another job, the club has a new green chairman, and apparently is receiving some initial consultation from one of America's great rees-toration specialists. :-[
On the surface, these changes don't seem to bode well for the National, but again, I'm optimistic that the ghost of CB will haunt them if they fail to understand what the course means to American golf and architecture (you'd hope playing there repeatedly would rub off but we know from experience this just isn't the case...).
-
Perhaps we should file a "Friend of the Course" brief and have the GCA membership and others that appreciate NGLA's place in history sign it as a means to present our unified view that classic courses need to remain intact insofar as design intent. Let new courses fill the need to respond to the march of technology. If the base of the pyramid should collapse, so many others classic designs may fall as well.
These courses are national treasures that ought to be treated as such. The slim minority that render these courses obsolete (and only with respect to a par figure) should not dictate so much change. After all, how much of the membership requires changes to the course for reasons of challenge? If they are doing it for championship golfers outside their membership, they are truly doing a disservice to themselves and others. Let's act on William Flynn's suggestion and build championship courses for championships and leave the classics alone.
BTW, Tom Paul has an excellent solution for NGLA. I'm sure we'll hear of it shortly.
-
Geoff:
WS Morrison touched on an important point. In the past we've seen people tamper with classic courses in the name of modernizing them for "championship" play.
NGLA doesn't need to go down this road, so given its unique place in the history of American golf architecture, let's hope it doesn't.
I was impressed during visits to Prestwick that their members understood they had a treasure. Let's hope the members of NGLA have the same wisdom.
-
Tim,
Nice point about Prestwick. I have played Prestwick (with the illustrious BCrosby) and completely agree that they treasure their course and, like many of its sister clubs in the UK, they recognize their place in history and understand the need to keep intact the design integrity of their courses. Granted Prestwick was significantly altered near the turn of the century, yet it remains 100 years later a lesson in design and a challenge for the overwhelming majority of golfers. With the weather that is certainly possible at both courses, there are challenges to every golfer, albeit not every day. I thought Prestwick tough in benign conditions. What course under ideal conditions could not be overcome by Tiger and his mates, even today's top amateurs? Who cares? For all their skills they are just plain that good. We should feel grateful for their displays of acumen and not subvert designs for the ability to boast at a cocktail party how tough their course is. It is easy to build a tough course, designing a classic course is another matter altogether.
-
This is shocking news.
I don't know Karl personally, but have talked with him on the telephone a few times.
I do know though, that Karl was doing restoration-based work at NGLA long before it was fashionable to restore older golf courses to their original design. He clearly has admiration and understanding for CB Macdonald's work and the historical importance of the golf course.
Golf course superintendents was architectural knowledge are invaluable. I have the impression Karl's of the sort.
Best of luck to him wherever he may end up. Hopefully doing equally good work for another club with a classic layout.
-
My solution for NGLA's desire to bring the course into the modern era and change it from what they may think is a "museum piece" to what they may think is a "championship course" (if that is in fact their new desire) is very simple!
They can allocate about $200 and get a ton of cards made up showing the course as a par 70 (it's actually a 73 right now and always has been)!
This is what they should try first if they are dedicated to this idea of changing it from a "museum piece" to a "championship course".
In this particular way NGLA is actually very very fortunate in their latitude and ability to transition this way and so easily--it's very much the option of the rare par 73 golf course. This is something that the likes of PVGC and Merion can not do--as going below 70 will never do--as that too is a perception thing--but unfortunately a very negative one for a championship course! Very ironically this is the very thing Philly Country once did for a national championship--transtion only on the score card from a 71 to a 69!
I will absolutely gaurantee them that in one week after being played by some championship caliber players those players opinions of the course will change and so will the club's and the membership's who might be concerned about this type of thing.
What will actually have changed though is all perception and not a single thing on the course will need to be changed--just the score card.
I'll go even further and predict that within that week those same players will say, "Wow we didn't ever know that NGLA had three such strong and demanding par 4s!"
They've been there that way for 90 years so if they're worried, at least, please try this first--they'll only be out about $200 for alternate score cards instead of God knows what for risky and potentially tragic redesign!
And then if the members decide they want to play their old "museum piece" instead of struggling to decide what tees to play and all the pyschology that goes with that just haul out of the drawer those original par 73 score cards and tee it up from the same place!
-
A simply elegant solution. It is amazing how strong a force perception is, yet how easily tricked.
-
Great idea, Tom!
However, if that doesn't work, how about.........
1. Having the members chip in a few hundred thousand each from their pocket change.
2. Buy Atlantic GC and/or the Bridge. Immediately expel all of the current membership. Move "NGLA" over there.
3. Deed over the old NGLA to a charitable trust to be run as a golf architecture museum with Gib Papazian and Geroge Bahto as co-curators.
4. Start a men's club on the sly with Tom Paul and Pat Mucci as co-chairmen.
6. Allow me to sit in the background and watch the committee meetings since I thought up the idea.
-
Okay, wait a minute. While #5 should be made a par-4 tomorrow, 7 and 18 absolutely should not. These are wonderful par-5s that are rarely - rarely - hit in two shots. (Note that longer players will often possess enough club to reach in two, but hitting the green is another matter.)
Also, both holes could be lengthened, but they really don't need it.
-
Geoff--
First of all, I am surprised that Karl Olson has left National. Where did he go?
I was talking to a member of Shinnecock Hills the other day and he was commenting on how bad the greens at National were. They are apparantly in the process of trying to remove the poa annua (good luck) from the greens. This is amazing considering the outstanding condition that Shinnecock is in currently. It sounds to me like the new greens chair is up to a lot of stuff.
-
Geoff:
Does Tucson Country Club know what its getting?
I haven't played Tucson CC and would like to hear what they have that Karl can restore.
-
Karl went to Tucson CC?
Karl went to Tucson National?
Where did he go?
-
I heard he went to Tucson Country Club which was built in 1949 by Billy Bell. Karl thought it had some potential for restoration as he compared it to Desert Forest?
-
NGLA may be suffering from a bit of an unusual modern day dilemma!
It very well could be that a course like NGLA that is famous and has many people who travel in real golf circles and also some very good golfers want to play and do play?
I think that NGLA must get a lot of play and keeps the rounds per season really moving and with a very wide spectrum of golfing levels. This kind of use might put some unusual pressure on course maintenance in some interesting ways.
Could the super feel he never really has the opportunity to do certain maintenance related things that need to be done because the course is in use so much?
Could the super feel he has a true juggling act setting up the course at any particular time to suit and accomodate well a really wide spectrum of golfing levels?
If that's so it might be a real unusual dilemma!
It seems that NGLA is a club that does not put up with slow play! It also seems that certain players, probably members, have gotten into some really long rounds for some reason--the course may be too hard for some of them for some reason while on the other hand NGLA may have the reverse opinion that the course may be too easy for very good players (some of whom come around) and even some members.
So if this happens to be true, what's going on and what could be done about it?
NGLA is the place where the "ideal maintenance meld" first occured to me about three years ago--and it was! But that was just before and during the National's Singles Tournament? Could some of the older less adept members have fun on NGLA with those conditions? I don't know but probably not! And it certainly would take them longer to play the course under those conditions.
So maybe NGLA has had an ongoing "maintenance meld" dilemma basically trying to suit, please and accomodated an unusually broad spectrum of playing levels at the same time to keep play moving well at the same time, to basically offer a challenge to one end of the spectrum without clobbering the other end of the spectrum!
This might not seem like much to some of you but it might to them.
And if that is part of their dilemma, what can they do about it?
Certainly none of us think even a thought of any kind of redesign is the answer. I hope no one at NGLA is seriously considering that either!
I wonder if the answer may be in the height of the rough and the lack of firmness on the course sometimes!
The answer may be to concentrate on keeping the course really firm and fast as much as possible and also keep the green surfaces as firm as possible as much as possible but to cut way down on their roughs, maybe to 2-2 1/2 inches!!
This way the poorer players won't lose their balls much and the good players will have that ideal firmness "through the green" combined with firm green surfaces (that make the aerial shots more intense)!
And when I talk about firm greens I'm not talking about green speeds either. That could be tricky too to accomodate a real spectrum of levels all the time. Good players love very fast greens and poor players struggle to get the ball in the hole of very fast greens.
Maybe something around 10 on the stimp would be ideal for everyone and just reserve something like the 12 they told me they were at one of the Singles tourneys for special occasions.
Another way, again, though, just might be to alter the par for various levels of player by using different score cards!
-
Tom:
Well done on espousing your super simple preliminary solution: "suck it and see" ... if no go, hey, let's rethink.
Just like in medicine, often best for the patient to
exhaust drug and alternative options, prior to radical surgery.
-
The salary advertised for the job at Tucson was 100-150K, negotiable.
Think that had something to do with it?
-
Motoring to Southampton, I pass a goodly number of new courses like Atlantic and The Bridge. As I view the putting greens it appears to me they are all built similarly, more or less of a bowl or saucer type, then built up toward the back of the green, and then scalloped with an irregular line of low, waving mounds or hillocks, the putting green for all the world resembling a pie-faced woman with a marcel wave. I do not believe any one ever saw in nature anything approaching these home-made putting greens. Then scattered over the side of the fairway are mounds modeled after haycocks or chocolate drops. The very soul of golf shrieks!
Please don't let that man touch my masterpiece. Please!
-
Tragically, the new guard at The National may be thinking ahead to the visits of touring professionals from neighboring Shinnecock in 2004.
I've been told that several of the pros (including Phil Mickelson) played at Garden City Golf Club before or after the Open at Bethpage, and as a result many of the members are suddenly interested in lengthening the golf course. (None of them talked about the 12th green, though.)
Garden City is also a par-73, so I'll get to work on some new scorecards immediately.
-
Haven't talked to Karl in quite some time but I know he is originally from New Mexico. I suspect the location had more to do with his move than the $$$.
-
Tom Doak:
I know you're a very good architect but I didn't know you were such a full service operation! I certainly didn't know you were a scorecard printer too!
Unfortunately, I sure do agree that as odd as it seems that when tour pros are in the vicinity and they stop by and play your golf course it can have a very unsettling effect on the club and the membership's perception of things! At the very least, no one can deny it creates a great deal of conversation and discussion.
NGLA really should get some alternate par 70 cards printed up in the spring of 2004 and get their course set up into it's best tournament condition about a month before the Shinnecock Open and keep it that way until the tour pros are out of town!
-
Tom
Why not go all the way and call 1 and 2 "par" 3's. After a few visiting pros start off double-double maybe the members won't feel as inadequate as they do now.
Rich
-
Rich:
As ususal you seem inclined to overdo a simple and good thing!
It's not necessary to create a perception change by make #1 & #2 par 3s, thereby making NGLA a par 68, because when Tiger, Phil, Ernie and Sergio go double, double on them (as par 3s as you predict) it's overkill!
Watching those superstars drive at those driveable par 4s and go bogie, bogie instead will do just fine for perception, thank you very much!
-
Rees at NGLA, isn't he doing work at Maidstone also? And who might be doing the bunker work at Shinnecock?
-
TEPaul,
The moment you make that change to the score card, you're catering to the PRO set-up mentality, and that's a dangerous concession and strategy.
Tom Doak,
Are you saying that you support retaining the 12th hole in its present form ?
Are you positive that comments weren't made about the 12th hole being out of context with the rest of the golf course ?
CBMac,
Rees has been a member of NGLA for quite some time and is consulted on the golf course. Some changes have been made to the golf course, and NO ONE has objected to them over the years. Could you tell me which changes or alterations you object to and why ?
Are you familiar with the marching orders given to Rees relative to the design of The Bridge ?
Have you played Atlantic ?
Have you played Atlantic since last years changes ?
von Hayek,
I'm with you.
# 7 and # 18 are sensational par 5's that get more difficult as you get closer to the green.
# 5 isn't a bad par 5 either.
There is no need to cater to a PGA PRO mentality and change the golf course. It is wonderful the way it is, and you can always lengthen # 7. I support taking the tee at # 18 straight back, but that would mean moving the gates and rerouting the road slightly. I know it would cost a few dollars, but to preserve the strategy of the hole, it would be worth it.
Hell, I'll even chip in a few quid.
Geoff is rightly concerned about altering a GREAT golf course.
If nothing was changed one IOTA at NGLA it will remain one of the all time GREAT golf courses, but once one change is made, it opens the flood gates for every interest group, every disgruntled golfer, every amateur architect to experiment upon a golf course that should remain UNTOUCHED.
-
Patrick:
It's not THE scorecard--it's A scorecard!!
Making some par changes by printing alternate scorecards (to be used by whomever or whenever they think it necessary) would be a lot cheaper and a HELL OF A LOT BETTER IDEA than to consider architecture changes to NGLA for WHATEVER reasons---for pros, good amateurs or for just some misguided PERCEPTION!!
-
Patrick:
I agree with you that NGLA should remain UNTOUCHED!! And presumably MacD's gate and the 18th tee is included in NGLA!!
What changes have been made to NGLA resulting from Rees Jones consulting the club.
And I want FACTS!!!!!
-
TEPaul,
You want the FACTS, you want the FACTS....
You can't handle the FACTS.
Start with holes # 1, #2, # 8, # 16.
-
Patrick:
Yes, well that may be a start on the FACTS but a miniscule one. What did Rees recommend and what did they do with it? Did he recommend changes to NGLA or was it restoration related and if so what? I don't have a type size small enough to describe the itty bitty facts you just supplied! What did Rees recommend for holes #1, 2, 8, 16? And why is it that NGLA seems not to recognize design attribution other that MacD and Raynor?
-
Rees is a member of Maidstone, that I can confirm.
-
Wouldn't it be a fantastic thing if Rees Jones went to the powers that be at Maidstone and NGLA and said, in effect;
"With your acknowledged understanding and appreciation of the great game of golf and it's marvelous history, I'm sure you're not in the least surprised to hear me say that you are charged with the preservation of a masterpiece of golf course architecture, that has provided immense pleasure to your fathers and their fathers, as it does each day for each of you."
"Yes, I could come in here and build new, longer tees that might be used once every couple of years, or move hazards that might come into play for 001% of golfers, and make the course HARDER, but potentially less interesting or rewarding, and I could probably even redo every green complex to make it visually apparent, starting with removing the hill on the blind Alps hole....yes, I could easily get the bulldozers rolling tomorrow and do all of those things very easily provided you folks are serious about this and capitally funded."
"But, let me say this first. The odds that you will have a better or more enjoyable golf course that is sympathetic to what you have been priviledged to be caretakers of, and that has held the entire game of golf enrapt for generations now, is questionable, at best. For any slight improvement I may make in terms of adding additional challenge for the very best in the game will likely also tip the balance of the scale into a territory that the remainder of you may find questionable, or incongruous at best, with the NGLA and Maidstone that you've loved all of your lives."
"Please weigh your decision very carefully, because the golf world is watching, and your decisions are for the most part, irrevocable."
-
Mike,
Wouldn't it be wonderful if every architect consulting to the classic old courses had the guts to say something like that! If they were able to forget about their ego for just a moment.
I suppose that the problem is that saying that to a greens committee doesn't make the architect any money, and he can't list that kind of accomplisment on his website.
-
Mike:
Brilliant.
Your words should be manifest for all architects and green commitees considering change to their classic gems.
Bravo.
-
We can talk about an architect having the guts or not to tell a club, like an NGLA or Maidstone, they should just leave their architecture alone, but unfortunately it's a bit more complicated than that and certainly we on this site should recognize that instead of just calling anyone who doesn't agree on this issue an idiot or gutless or else always possessing enormous egos!
There're a lot of issues in most clubs when it comes to things like this!! And no architect can deny them or avoid them, unfortunately! Even an architect like Rees Jones who's a member of Maidstone and NGLA can't really get away with just telling a membership they should leave the course alone, he has to explain why and he has to also come up with some ways of allaying those memberships concerns and protecting the architecture at the same time!
Most memberships that are considering these changes have their own set of reasons for doing it (and those reasons are remarkably similar amongst these famous clubs!).
However, they take those reasons far more seriously than most on here seem to want to admit. And many of these clubs actually do have real pride in their courses--but a pride that we aren't acknowledging--a pride like their course's ability to test players (probably even touring pros) well! That's a very general and common club and course pride and something many of the famous clubs were once known for.
Issues like fear of technology advances (the distance the ball is going), the fear of their course having become too easy, and very much the concern about what this means in the way others perceive the "quality" of the course which unfortunately very much relates to the course's RANKING!!
This is one of the reasons I really don't like the rankings--this kind of club sentiment to decreasing ranking leads first and foremost to the club considering altering their architecture and making the course harder or at least keeping the perception of the course's difficulty up!
A guy like Rees Jones, if he's going to tell a club like NGLA and the Maidstone to just leave those courses alone has got to deal with these sentiments too!! He can't just tell them that the courses are famous and good and to leave them alone only for that reason!
I wish he could and I wish they would listen if that's all he did and said but that's just not the reality of these issues and most all of us should start to understand these things if we're interested in classic architecture and really want to be effective at preserving it!
Just like Rees does, any of us have got to find better ways of explaining to those clubs some rational answers to allay their fears and concerns and simply calling the memberships of any and all these classic courses idiots is just not the best way to go about doing that!!
-
Mike Cirba,
Are you certain that Rees hasn't already said words to that effect to NGLA ?
Chris Kane,
Since when is adding tee length a bad thing ?
Most classic architects provided for flexability, allowing for that very change in their original design and acknowledged same.
Every course that I know of, including St Andrews has added tee length. I don't hear anybody complaining about the added length St Andrews has acquired over the years. WHY ?
The 2nd hole at NGLA has been lengthened as has the 8th hole. The 16th hole has had a new tee added to the left of the 15th green up on the hill. Has anybody complained about those changes ?
If technology takes the center line bunkers on # 8 out of play for decent players, is it wrong to lenghten that tee to bring them back into play ?
All of a sudden Rees is a villain again, and he's done nothing than any of you are aware of at NGLA and Maidstone.
Nah, there's no double standard or Bias on this site.
-
Mike- Bravo from me as well. I think your words should be heard by any architect who wants to be involved in restoration.
Tom Paul- that last post of yours might be the worst stuff you've written in the last two years. Sorry, but you're saying that just because these fellows are in power at historic old clubs and they are well intentioned that architects need to accomodate their idiotic ideas. Well, I'm sorry but they really don't unless they simply will do anything for a paycheck. I understand that the great old courses were built in part to test the best players of the time and at the same time give enjoyment to the members but perhaps it is just these bluebloods that could influence the USGA instead of changing their course. Perhaps the architect could say that your course is stretched out as long as we can make make it and instead of altering the architectural integrity of your course which would not make the course any better, you should get the golf ball back to where it should be! Imagine Merion, Cypress Point, NGLA, Maidstone, Augusta, Seminole et. al. all working to preserve golf rather then altering their courses in response to the need to satisfy 0.001% of golfers who play their course rarely.
-
Geoffrey,
I have to disagree with you and everyone else who maintains the changes are for .001 % of the golfers.
The changes are for 100 % of the golfers.
Forgotten in everyone's preoccupation with the PGA TOUR player is the multiple forward tees these courses offer.
Modern technology, with gear effect, low torque, lighter clubs, LARGER club faces have allowed every level of golfer to hit it longer and straighter, including those who play from the FORWARD tees, thus defeating the intended architecture, at every level, not just for the PGA TOUR player.
Most, if not all, classic architects built into their designs the ability to lengthen their golf courses, why should that flexibility be looked upon unfavorably ?
TEPaul,
I'm with you on this one, but don't you go thinking this is going to be a permanent alliance. ;D
-
Pat- so when National runs out of room to move back the tees you advocate other changes to the course to create challenge and difficulty for elite professional golfers who may play a tournament there every few years? ???
-
Geoffrey Childs:
I completely agree with you. When great golf clubs like NGLA start lengthening their courses to accomodate professionals who show up every now and then, they are endorsing the mindless golf technology arms race.
They should put their energies toward getting the USGA to finally act on the technology issue rather than encouraging more clubs to spend money modifying their course.
We need guys like NGLA to be leaders, to play a constructive role. Fueling the golf technology arms race is a step in the wrong direction.
-
Tom Paul;
I understand and respect your views as far as "ratings", but I don't believe that is what is at play here, in the least. The evidence doesn't support it, clearly.
Twenty years ago, in 1982, there was one prominent ranking list in this country and that was Golf Digest. At that time, the whole idea of "challenge" and difficulty took precedence, which is probably natural coming out of the Trent Jones era of design. If there was ever a time for NGLA and Maidstone (as well as Garden City) to be affected by rankings, it was then...not now. Why?
Simply, because somewhat unbelievably, at the time, NGLA was MISSING on the Top 100 list published by Golf Digest. Maidstone and Garden City appeared in the "Second 50" of the Top 100.
Let's look at the design history of each, because these are clearly not clubs that have been affected by each design whiim and trend over the years, much less by ratings.
In the case of NGLA, other than Karl Olsen's vaunted "restoration" work to clear trees and other growth, I don't believe anyone made any substantive design changes to the course for the past 70 years or more, when Maxwell was there. RTJ Sr. installed some irrigation lines, but that's about it. For the most part, the course is as Macdonald left it.
With Maidstone, very little has been done since Maxwell rebuilt several of Park's holes after the hurricane in the later 30s. A handful of minor touchups by Dick Wilson, Alfred Tull, and most recently Brian Silva, but almost nothing of substance that would have altered Park's work in any significantly aesthetic or functional way.
At Garden City, we know about RTJ Sr. and his work on the 12th, but almost without exception, the course is as Emmett and Travis left it at the turn of last century. Tom Doak was responsible for some restoration work recently (mostly tree clearing), and the club rebuilt their bunkers using inhouse workers.
So, these are courses that are not only historically important, but also clubs where the memberships have historically been averse to "keeping up with the Joneses". In a way, each is almost the antithesis of Augusta National, for instance.
So, back to rankings. Now, 20 years later, after being essentially "dissed" due to their purported lack of challenge for the modern game in 1982, where do each stand on the major rankings?
NGLA is ranked #11 on Golfweek's Best Classical course list, #14 on Golf Magazine's list, and #16 on Golf Digest's (interestingly, the only one that uses "Resistance to Scoring" as one of its criteria).
Garden City is ranked #18 on Golfweek, #33 on Golf Magazine, and #27 on Golf Digest.
Maidstone is ranked #33 on Golfweek, #39 on Golf Magazine, and #42 on Golf Digest.
It seems to me to be ironic that these courses have climbed significantly in the rankings over the past 20 years, and are now seemingly being viewed by some members as antiquities that are no longer functionally relevant. They are AWESOME in their present form, and should remain so as they have done for the last century.
Patrick;
I don't know that Rees didn't say that, nor did I imply that he didn't. I only said "wouldn't it be great if he did?".
I certainly hope that he would!
In the case of Maidstone, I had heard that he previously declined to work on the course because he loved it so much and didn't see the need. I'm not sure what has changed his mind, if he has now accepted. I would think he would feel similarly about National.
-
GeoffreyC:
You're a very smart guy, most everyone on here knows that, and if you really think about it you'll know what I wrote there is not the worst I've written in the last two years! Matter of fact, I consider it some of the best and certainly the most honest and realistic.
And I certainly never said that any of these people who control these old clubs are doing what they are doing in a "well intentioned" manner (the way we look at "well intentioned" anyway), although clearly most of them feel that they are, and I too feel that they think they are! And I think the sooner the likes of us on this website realize that the better it will be for them, for us, and for these golf courses generally!
Intentions are actually the sole issue here and the question of this particular topic is too--"Does the ........membership know what they have?
That's the most important question and the one I feel an entity like Golfclubatlas and some of its contributors can help immensely with!
My feeling, after all this time, is that they really (the clubs and memberships) do think they understand what they have, and they feel proud of it too but they do not understand how that architecture needs to be handled now and into the future. They don't really understand that because just they don't, because they haven't done some of the research and obviously intense general and specific analysis that many of us have of these types of courses and architecture, what their inherent design intents generally and specifically are and how truly understanding that can be used to allay and even solve some of their present day concerns about their courses and how it plays and holds up to the future (for anyone, real or perceived).
My more immediate point, Geoffrey, is that these people do have concerns, and to them they are very real--although to you they don't appear to be! To help these people understand other ways to solve and allay those concerns takes education, it takes cooperation that's essential to establishing any kind of collaboration and information sharing which leads to education and eventually to the correct decisions and products.
God knows, I'm certainly not saying that these courses need to be redesigned by someone like Rees or Fazio--I'm very much saying that many of them probably DO NOT need to be! Furthermore, I'm saying that many of the CAN'T be without destroying them in some way!
But somehow those concerns have to be dealt with intelligently and the apparent automatic inclination of those on this site to call these people "idiots" and "egomaniacs" and even worse is NOT the way to go about accomplishing that!
I repeat, this is NOT the way to go about accomplishing anything constructive for those people, their clubs, or us in our interest in preservation of these classic courses!
Do you think that Linc Roden started out some 30 years ago with the membership and the powers of his golf course calling them all "idiots" and "egomaniac". No way in hell did Linc do that! He did it very slowly (because basically noone had done it anywhere before him) educating those people into the realities of those courses and their architecture!
We need far more people on here now like Linc Roden and far less people who use the knee-jerk automatic and easy way out of just calling these people idiots and egomaniacs and worse!
This isn't even about architecture anymore, Geoffrey, it's about commonsense, its about consideration and ultimately it's about doing something that will work better for all of us!
I think some people on here get into that easy reaction because they don't really know that much about the architecture of those courses anyway, they certainly know very little or nothing at all about the concerns of the memberships! They don't know how to go about even analyzing and solving the problems for all with these courses, so they just say derogatory things, and it's pretty clear to me at this point with Golfclubatlas that's never been of much help at all doing it that way!
I've been on here for over two years, I've seen how these things have gone, particularly at Merion and a few others and if we could go back two years and try to be a bit more cooperative, to be less confrontational, I can almost guarantee that better things would have happened for all of us!
I don't think what I wrote is the worst in two years, I think it's the best--and will in the future also have the best chance of success for all!
Calling anyone an "idiot" no matter how wrong they someday may come to see what they've done is, is just not the best way to go about this!
And if most everyone on here, including you, is going to seriously try to convince me that it is, it will probably be the last you'll see of me on the restoration and preservation end of things on Golfclubatlas!
I'll just go and try to find a better way to go about this and a better place from which to do it!
-
TE
I understand that these clubs are proud of their golf courses and I understand they undertake these renovations for many different reasons. I also understand that these clubs are not going to be asking me (or GCA) what I (we) think, but they will ask an architect. I'm sure Riviera, Medinah, Merion, Bethpage, Equinox, CC of Virginia, Yale, Hollywood, Baltusrol, Ridgewood, Quaker Ridge, Congressional, East Lake, Seminole, Old Town, Inverness, Dornick Hills, Scioto and Oak Hill all asked an architect for their professional opinion. I'm not professional architect; I am a golfer who enjoys golf architecture -- as are the majority on this site. I am also not a member of any of these clubs and obviously I'm not involved with the internal politics, and really could care less. But as someone who selfishly enjoys great architecture and the history of golf architecture, I don’t really think it is that important for me to understand or agree with the rational of the club or their hired gun. My focus is on my own selfish love for interesting (and important) architecture.
Maybe I missed it, but I don’t believe anyone called anyone an idiot or gutless on this thread. And isn't a concern for the rankings somewhat ego driven? And wouldn't an over concern for a ranking, force you to question a club's knowledge of what they actually had architecturally?
As far as Rees Jones’s involvement is concerned. Of those people who have actually met the man, I have never heard a negative word. He universally well liked -- he has to be a super nice and charming person. His friends and acquaintances are all loyal supporters. From what I have seen of him on TV, he impresses me as someone who is very bright, intelligent and confident, as well as modest. He has enjoyed critical acclaim from the media for his work at The Country Club, East Lake, Congressional, and Bethpage to name a few. He clearly knows how to move a course up the rankings. It is no wonder he is the popular choice with many of these clubs and organizations. I’m sure there is no doubt in his mind that he has both improved and preserved the architecture of those clubs who’ve hired him -- and fulfilled his mandate! And I’m sure he is confident he will do the same for both Maidstone and the NGLA. We shall see.
-
MikeC:
Look, I know where you're coming from, I really do! I know what your intentions are and they're the same as mine, and I think you know that!
I think you have a very good understanding of these courses and what they are and what will make them work best and preserve them at the same time.
I hate this to sound blunt or arrogant and I don't in any way mean it to be, but I think I almost HAVE to say it at this point! I understand these courses too, and I understand them, I believe, about the same way you do.
But what I understand far better than you do, there is no question of it, is the memberships of some of these clubs we're talking about here! I know these people and I know what they're thinking and why; I know what their concerns are--and sure, some of them probably are "idiots" and "egomaniacs" when it comes to really understanding architecture but they aren't out to destroy these course--or they certainly don't feel they are!
And that's where people like us come into this--and the supreme irony is THEY KNOW that TOO!
But they aren't going to EVER talk to us or cooperate with us or even ask us for a single opinion or advice, if we say some of the things we have and do about them!
Would you cooperate in any way with people who say those things about you? I wouldn't, probably even if I thought they might be right or could help somehow!
I know you care so much about this architecture, Mike, and I know you'd like to help do something about it!
There's a way to go about that and there's another way where it will never happen for us! I know you know what that is and that you agree with me on this or that you will!
Stop saying or even implying these people are "idiots" and "egomaniacs" (even if you actually feel that they may be) and help me and the rest of the knowledgeable contributors to this site cooperate with them and help in an educational effort with these courses and their architecture.
But before any of us can help do that we have to listen to them and their concerns and figure out reasonable solutions for all and how to explain the solutions to them! I know that's what you want to do and I know you will understand that's the only way to go about it.
If we can never do that we will never be able to do the very thing that we all want to do--preserve classic architecture and increase real understanding of it!
-
Tom Paul;
I'm really confused.
I understand and agree with what you're saying as far as not alienating people in the game....cutting off our collective noses to spite our faces, so to speak...but the part I'm missing is where you say I've said or even implied that the people involved there are "idiots", "egomaniacs", or anything of the sort.
Please re-read what I wrote about "wouldn't it be great if Rees would say that", because I'm not sure where you're inferring that from....and I promise I'm not trying to be somehow coy or misleading in the least!
Instead, my post stemmed simply from reading an article about Rees Jones about a year ago where it was mentioned that he saw no need for architectural changes at Maidstone, that he LOVED the course, and that he therefore declined the overtures of some members who pressed him to do otherwise. I remember being VERY impressed by his refusal, and personally heartened that he recognized the course for what it is.
So, in thinking about that, I was hoping that his future role at both clubs might be simply to make sure that they are "preserved", as is, with the possible exception of some back tees where the land will accommodate it, where angles of play can be maintainted, and where it might help retain the original design intent against the onslaught of technology.
And, you're correct. I know not a thing about the internal dynamics, politics, etc., at these clubs, nor their memberships. As such, I'd want to be particularly careful not to carelessly offend anyone at either club.
I hope you can understand where I'm confused.
-
Tom MacWood:
You sure have missed what has been said about people and memberships on this thread and on this site for the last few years (or since it came into existence)!
The same can be said about some of the architects mentioned on this site too, and you certainly have to be aware of that no matter what you may or may not think the efficacy or impact of that might be!
Even the architects themselves, I believe, may be far more inclined to listen to some of us or certainly to pay more attention and cooperate with us and do the correct thing when dealing with and educating members and clubs to what can be best or a reasonable solution for these courses and their architecture now and into the future of the times we live in with golf!
You said it yourself Tom in your last post! You said you don't care about those memberships or understanding them or their hired guns, you said all you really care about is "my own 'selfish' love of interesting (and important) architecture!"
Well, I'm telling you, Tom, imploring you really, it's about time, you of all people, who has the ability to do great research and help out, should begin to start thinking less "selfishly" about this subject and this architecture and your love for it and start thinking how you too can cooperate and help out here!
I know you would like to help preserve it any way you can, or I would think you would! One of the ways to do that is to try to start to deal directly with these clubs and also the architects they hire. It's no secret both Fazio and Jones read Golfclubatlas and are clearly turned off by the insulting attitude on here about them!
Is that really the way you think this site and any of us on here can cooperate with and help any club or their architects if they would like us to? Or maybe you just think they're never going to like us to that or want us to in any way.
Well, that's certainly not my experience. Some of the clubs mentioned on here say they would like to and they probably would if we'd try to be a bit more cooperative. I take what they say seriously and that's why I'm mentioning the things I am on this thread!
I'm not trying in any way to create an "apologia" for anything that they may have done at any course, and they know that. But I'm serious about what I say and I really think, at this point, a few of these clubs are too. I don't even care if its only one for now--that to me is enough!
-
Geoffrey and Tim,
You're both way off the mark.
It's not the PROFESSIONAL that is impacting the desire to retain the playability features of the golf course, it's the AMATEURS.
A few years ago, at Point Judith, when I first witnessed Terry McBride hit his new biggest big Bertha 30-40 yards by me and my AJ tech big bertha, I thought I was hitting defective balls. After hitting Terry's driver a few times during that round I was convinced it was the equipment, so the next day, everyone in our foursome went out and bought a Biggest Big Bertha.
Do you know what one of my first thoughts was ?
Now I could carry the bunkers on # 8 at NGLA and not worry about which side of the center line bunkers I should hit my tee shot to. And, on # 18 I could carry the left side fairway bunker.
That single club had an immediate impact on my play of holes # 1,2,3,5,7,8,10, 12, 16,17 and 18 at NGLA.
That single club rendered much of the bunkering and intended strategies obsolete.
And, it wasn't as if I was a young buck, I was an old guy, in my mid to late 50's.
Kids today, with handicaps of zero to 18 hit the ball longer than I do, and when the higher handicaps play from the forward tees with their new equipment, those same bunkers and intended strategies become obsolete as well.
Now Geoffrey, you ask a very interesting question.
What happens when you run out of room.
Nowhere is this dilema more evident than at the 16th at GCGC.
There is no more room, the tee is right up against the property line and a chain link fence.
The problem, the first row of right side bunkers are totally out of play for almost every level of golfer, taking in to consideration the use of different tees markers, which now number three at GCGC.
If I had my druthers, I would either add additional bunkers forward, or move those obsolete bunkers forward, retaining their original strategic intent.
The same problem, though to a lessor degree, is occuring at # 11 where the step row of cross bunkers is becoming more and more out of play for more and more golfers, defeating the architectual purpose of the bunkers. The immediate, least expensive solution is to move the tee back 20 yards.
I think many of us would like to see a dial back in distance with a standard golf ball, but that may never happen.
If the original architects contemplated adding length, what's so bad about doing so.
As to moving bunkers to bring them back into play, I say in some cases, it may be the move of last resort.
Noone complained when the 2nd tee at NGLA was lengthened by about 20-30 yards. Noone has complained that the 8th tee was lengthened by about 10-15 yards. Why all the commotion about doing the same thing on some other holes ?
-
Oh shit, MikeC, I'm not accusing you of calling anybody an "idiot" or "egomaniac", and if I said or implied that you ever had (or even if you actually had) that's not the point here!
You know what my point is, how else can I say it better or more clearly?
Help me figure out a better way of trying to get Golfclubatlas to cooperate with some of these courses! Some may not want to no matter how cooperative we may seem to be but others do want to!
What could be clearer and less confusing than that?
Almost everyone on here seems to take everything that's said on here so personally! They shouldn't! I'm not talking about you personally, I'm talking about the way the tenor of this site on restoration is or certainly is perceived to be. Did you and I invent the term "treehouse"? No way!
All I'm saying is let's try harder to cooperate if that's what any club would like to do!
Apparently some on here must feel if it's even suspected that they have anything to do with some of these clubs, memberships or their architects it selling out on their principles or something!
That to me is total BS! I think that's a true cop-out!
For someone to tell me he cares about a course's architecture and if it gets preserved properly but he has no real interest in what that club's membership understands about it or thinks about it, is just completely lacking in commonesense to me. Matter of fact I think that attitude is completely ridiculous, but even worse very counterproductive!
And I would like to help change those attitudes and also any club's willingness to cooperate too.
What could be less confusing than that?
-
Patrick:
A permanent alliance with you?? No way in hell! Even if we actually had one, I'd never admit it!! There's definitely no fun in that!
-
Patrick (and others):
RE: Moving the bunkers FORWARD to bring their original strategic purpose back into play.
It's more expensive than moving tees backwards, but perhaps more consistent with restoring original shot values.
ANGC did just that on #5 recently. Despite the misgivings of many on this site, I'm of the opinion that most of the changes to MacKenzie's original design have been pretty effective. Even RTJ Sr. made a major improvement there on #16!! (from what I can tell).
The problem is, to most members, repositioning bunkers is like taking out a Stupid Tree - it's significant, very visible and dealing with it is mandatory. Playing longer tee markers is optional and, to those who don't bother, somewhat covert.
What is Tom Doak saying about the 12th green at Garden City??
-
Mike Cirba:
"Wouldn't it be great if Rees said that?"
Of course it would! I'm not denying that! But you and others have to start to get a better idea why that's not so easy for Rees to do even if he wanted to!
Was it Rees that came to Maidstone and NGLA and told them it was time they get into the modern age? That's certainly not my understanding!
They came to him and he very well may prefer to see those courses remain exactly as they are! No one I know has ever proved to me otherwise.
But others of us on here and elsewhere, have got to start seeing what Rees faces too with clubs and memberships (and even the USGA)!
If you were Rees and a club you belonged to wanted to do something, would you tell them they shouldn't and watch them go out and hire someone else to do it anyway?
Come on now, get real! Rees wouldn't do that, I wouldn't do that and either would you!
We should do whatever we can to convince any club of what we consider reasonable solutions and not obnoxious ones! And the only way to do that is to first figure out what those clubs, memberships and Rees is dealing with and concerned about-what they think the problems are and the solutions are!
A club and course may feel they have some problem on their course somewhere and we are really expecting them to solve that particular problem by forgetting about it or putting it off until they can all band together and get the USGA and R&A to do something about technology? Jesus, fellows!
In case you don't know it some of these elitist bluebloods, as you call them, are trying to do exactly that!! Did anyone hear Hootie on that? Did anyone read what Ernie Ransome said on that? Did anyone read what Pete Dye said? What do you expect them all to do in the meantime--just shut down doing anything at all?
-
Tom Paul:
I see nothing wrong with you or anyone else trying a "cooperative" approach.
But, should people refrain from speaking out on GolfClubAtlas about the golf technology arms race and how little sense it makes? I think not.
Pat Mucci:
Your mistake was going out and buying the Biggest Big Bertha. What is the point of buying something that makes the bunkering and intended strategies obsolete?
Should NGLA now go move bunkers so you can't carry them even with the Biggest Big Bertha?
As I've said before, the golf industry has confused the whole issue of distance. They want us to buy into the whole concept of "absolute" distance, when deep down intelligent people like yourself understand that "relative" distance is the essence of the game.
Next time you go to NGLA, just take your old persimmon driver and I'm sure you'll have a blast.
-
Tom Paul:
I've seen Pete Dye's comments, but not those of Ernie Ransome. What you summarize what Ernie had to say?
-
Wow- I really think we are all on the same page so I'm also confused about what each of us are thinking.
I'm all for moving tees back as far possible so long as the design intent is maintained. Moving a tee back as they did on the 8th at Riviera, however, ruined the whole intent on the double fairway. It must be done correctly. Again, what happens when a course runs out of room? Isn't it easier to try to convince the powers to be at these courses that its cheaper and easier to lobby to control the equipment/ball?
As far as calling someone an idiot, I think its safe to assume that in dealing with clubs and individuals on a personal face to face basis no one here would act or behave as anything but a gentleman. However, on this site sometimes we can (and should) speak our minds a bit more bluntly. Posting general thoughts not directed towards any individual in a malicious manner on this site is quite a bit different from an architect telling a specific individual or committee in as nice a way possible that he has lengthened the course as much as possible and maybe its time forget about a US Open or even a Walker Cup as long as the equipment is still out of control.
-
Tim Weiman:
Of course I'm not recommending not speaking out! I'd actually recommend speaking out even more on all these issues, both technology and how it's impacting architecture, how it isn't and intelligent solutions to solve and allay problems, all of them! I think you realize that's what I mean too!
What I am suggesting is if any of us really want to help any club (and if they may want opinion and advice), if we really want them to take us seriously we need far less of this site saying or suggesting or implying that these people are "idiots" and "egomaniacs"!
Frankly, on a situation like Merion, most all the contributors on this site really have very little idea what that club faced with their bunkers, some don't even seem to care! All most on here said is that they should leave them alone regardless of almost anything! That's not a realistic approach to me.
What I'm saying is it may have been possible if we could have cooperated with that club and they with us to explain some things about the fundamentals and principles of architecture and how it related to their bunkers and then maybe helped in that way for them to create a few interesting solutions to the problems they thought they had (on those bunker surrounds only), or may have had, that were different solutions to the ones they used! The fact is they were looking for solutions, and probably good ones wherever they could find them. They may not have found them, or all of them, and in the way they would have liked to, certainly in retrospect!
I think there were some things that could have come out of this site too, but that would have required some of us, any of us, understanding what was concerning them first, and maybe a different way to go about the solutions to their perceived problems! But that didn't happen and it never will again if we treat them the way we did and call them the things we did!
And that's a very far cry from speaking out or not speaking out, and that's not what I'm saying at all!
This can all be distilled down to a pretty simple concept: "Try to be nice to people even if you disagree with them!" It ultimately becomes easier to convince them to do what you think is right if logic and commonsense happens to be on your side!
I really hate to say this, because you all know I love Golfclubatlas, but the way this site and some on it treated Merion and some of its members was and is embarrassing to me!
But that aside, I feel we could have been more successful in helping them understand and do the things we believe in, which I believe they would have too, if some of this had been done differently!
And that's not failing to speak out or compromise anything some of us believe in either!
-
Geoffrey:
You may not be as aware (as I am) of who reads and has read golfclubatlas, or even heard secondhand what is sometimes said on here!
Hell, even the frequent contributors on here say they can't believe how different the people are who they frequently read pon here vs when they meet them in person.
I don't know whether it's a general problem with Internet communication (it seems harder to be nice on the Internet and be understood the way one would like to or hope to) but I just think Golfclubatlas can do a better job of it than they have in the past!
Although some contributors deny saying it, the words "idiots" and "egomaniacs" have been used to describe members of golf clubs that contributors do not know, and that, at least, should come to an end on this site.
It might be hard to have your meaning understood the way you want it understood on the Internet but no one can say that words like "idiot" and "egomaniac" are confusing or difficult to understand the meaning of!
-
Tom- Its hard to argue with that last post of yours nor would I try because I agree with you. I think again there might have been some communication problem (common on the internet as well) with regard to our right to speak our minds on this site. There is no excuse, however, for rude behavior.
-
TE
My mention of the name calling had to do with this specific thread. Certainly there have been 'idiot' and 'gutless' thrown out over the years, but it was fairly limited and not really a current problem.
Like everyone who has an interest in a particular subject it is based on a self-interest or selfishness. I have a desire to satisfy my inquisitiveness on golf architecture and its history -- which has lead to the research. And I enjoy sharing what I know or what I have found with others with similar interests. But I am under no illusions that golf architects or clubs will read what I have written; or that what I have written will alter the course of action. I hope I'm wrong, but when guys like George Bahto and Geoff Shackelford at Yale and Riviera have little or no impact, its pretty obvious that ultimately the clubs, organizations and golf architects will do what they want to do. And I really have no interest in club politics and mandates.
Unfortunately one of the more depressing aspects of the research is the discovery of what once existed and indentifying some of the less than positive changes that have occured (and by whom) in the past or recently (and change is not necessarily a bad thing, you'll also find very good changes, as you well know). I hope that someone years from now will not be depressed by what they've discovered at NGLA and/or Maidstone.
What complicates this issue, is that even among so called purists, you will not find a concensus. When personalities, friendships, egos and differing tastes are involved some individuals who are extremely consistant can suddenly become inconsistant regarding a particular architect or golf course - its only natural and there are normally logical reasons for those apparent inconsistancies. And taste in golf architecture is subjective. I don't mind expressing my personal tastes and the reasons for my tastes, but others have every right to disagree and to look at differently. For that reason I prefer to document the history, its more difficult to disagree with historical facts and I have found history helps to confirm my own views. And perhaps by documenting what I have found, and allowing others to draw their own conclusions, a handful in some cases might agree with my own. But I also expect plenty of disagreement, which is good too.
If your desire is to effect change, my vote would be on influencing the architects. As group they are by far the most powerful players -- moving from one group of influential members to the next influential group of members. They understand the negative impact of equipment and have recently put out a statement stating the case. Maybe they should get together and do something as a group to preserve the most important works of their art.
-
Tom;
Perhaps I AM naively optimistic and engaging in wishful thinking to believe that Rees could say what I wrote to the members in charge and have it accepted as a legitimate, professional answer to the matters concerning them.
However, if I am, I think it's because I don't see a lot of room for maneuvering here...no pun intended. It seems to be a bit of an either/or conundrum, between strict preservation and architectural tinkering and modification.
I don't claim to know what Rees has been asked to do or what his mandate is at either club, but I have to assume that it's more than general maintenance which I'm sure can be handled competently by inhouse staffs.
Neither course has "lost" its design features over the years...in fact, much the opposite, so I'm certain he isn't being asked to "restore" the courses, either.
I think that recognizing those things is what gets some here rather alarmed.
As I mentioned, if it's simply a matter of some new back tees carefully placed (where room exists) along original lines of play, I think most here would be understanding and supportive of that approach, recognizing that until the ball is somehow standardized or reigned in, ALL courses are at risk of losing design integrity. However, it's hard to envision what more could be done beyond that which would ultimately improve either course...and it's all tooooo easy to see just the opposite happening.
As far as how we conduct ourselves and our deportment within this site, I agree that it's important for our credibility and I think you know I'm fully supportive of that. I've always tried to keep a sense of respect and decorum, even on issues I've felt intensely passionate about, or where the outcomes and decision-making processes were frustrating and ultimately contrary to what I hoped would happen. Sometimes, I'd try to mix in graveyard humor (i.e. Huge "Puffy" Wilson), hoping to still make my point but doing so in a way that made clear that we aren't talking about life and death issues here...but something worthy of satire and passion nonetheless.
I would also hope that you are ultimately correct about this site becoming a resource that clubs could go to freely, without fear of ridicule or embarrassment, to seek informed and reasonable opinions that might be outside their own perspectives and political inner circles, so to speak, and I'm sure they'd find us to be willingly helpful and sincere. You certainly have a much better sense than I do of how much of that is happening "behind the scenes", and I'm heartened that you find good cause for optimism, in that regard.
However, I think many of the more ill-tempered remarks that sometimes get voiced here are out of some sense of frustration that such dialogue is not happening much, if at all, that they are aware of. In the meantime, historic course after historic course has been tinkered with, revised, redesigned, etc., and most of those have not been for the better, in my opinion.
I think part of human nature suggests that the important people who run clubs often feel that they should be able to make their own decisions, do their own fact-finding (if that's part of the process), and should be able to do so without criticism beyond the walls of the club boardroom. That's legitimate, of course, as they are the ones paying the bills while we are simply interested bystanders to the process.
Let us know how we can help.
-
Tim Weiman,
Buying the Biggest Big Bertha was no mistake, my scores got lower, my cash flow higher and my disposition improved.
Competition drives many things, including the selection of equipment. In tournaments or at my home club, when competitors are using the latest equipment and improving their game, one would have to be foolish to play with obsolete equipment, at the cost of improving their game.
You may play with woods and old golf balls if that makes you happy. But, if you want to SCORE better, and compete better, high tech can't be denied.
If my utilizatioh of equipment renders a feature "out of play" it is not my responsibility to bring it back into play.
Locally, each club must make their own choices, and globally, the USGA and R&A must make choices.
Since I do not use any ILLEGAL equipment I'm quite content to continue to use clubs that will help my game, despite the fact that I still play the old Ping Eye 2 irons.
And, I might just change them.
With respect to your question about NGLA moving their bunkers, when the distance problem becomes systemic, they, like all other clubs will be faced with a dilema.
Do they lengthen their tees, and if that is not possible on a hole, do they reposition the features/bunkers to preserve the architectural intent of the design, or do they leave it as is ?
Answer me one question.
Why hasn't anybody objected to, or complained about the 30 or so added yards of tee length at the 2nd hole at NGLA in the last ten years ???
Answer two more questions.
Why has noone complained or objected to the left side tee on
# 16 over the last ten years.
And why has noone complained or objected to the added length on # 8 over the last 5 years.
And, was the golf course, or its architecture in any way diminished by the above changes ?
Lastly, I'm no more likely to take out my old Tonney Penna driver and play NGLA than I am to abandon my air conditioning in favor of an attic fan, take a train versus a Jet to Florida or California, or go to a dentist that uses an old drill.
There is no practical reason and nothing to be gained by any of the above, including the use of persimmon woods.
-
Pat Mucci:
If I didn't know otherwise, I would think you were part of the Titleist marketing team that came up with those awful ads poking fun at golf architects while conditioning the public to believe the golf technology arms race makes sense.
If you want to buy the latest Big Bertha, go ahead, be my guest. But, when you then suggest a club should modify its golf course because your purchase has made strategic features obsolete, you have become part of the problem with golf in America today.
Your analogy of taking a train verses a plane to Florida only adds to confusion on this issue. If you want to get to Florida faster, by all means take a plane and enjoy your holiday.
That doesn't change the fact that when it comes to golf we should all recognize the difference between "relative" distance and "absolute" distance.
"Relative" distance is the essence of the game. It's about the uncertainty and challenge of clearing a hazard or reaching a three shot hole in two. It's about the advantage the longer player can gain from his skill.
"Absolute" distance, to the contrary, is all about making the playing field bigger. It's about wasting money on "new improved" technology that forces us to spend even more money modifying our courses.
The pursuit of "absolute" distance is the essence of the pointless golf technology arms race. It leads us nowhere.
As for your specific questions, if a club occasionally builds a new tee, I don't have a major problem with it. However, when you start down the road to re-positioning hazards, it only adds fuel to the golf technology arms race. Leading clubs like NGLA should stand strongly against that kind of thing.
Tom Paul:
I never said, nor do I believe the members of NGLA are "idiots". What I do believe is that we are all becoming victims of "groupthink". Pat Mucci's last post is indicative of the problem. Somehow he has become convinced that the never ending pursit of absolute length makes sense, that it is the natural and logical way to go.
If you are able to work cooperatively with the leadership at NGLA to avoid the mindset Pat has apparently fallen victim to, my hat will be off to you.
-
Well, after all of this, my question still remains, does The National's membership really appreciate what it has? Do they understand that the architecture of their course is comparable to The Old Course in quality and historic significance, all the while artfully restored in recent years?
I'm sorry, but by even asking Rees Jones what he thinks of the place, whether his ideas are used or not (let's hope not), displays a lack of foresight. So I would have to say the answer on further review is that whoever is in charge hasn't much idea what they have.
Like Rees, Leroy Neiman is surely a nice man and very popular artist, but he would not be asked what to do with a pristine Monet (but I suspect he might suggest something if he thought it would help his reputation). Rees is a specialist at doing redo work for the USGA, he is not in CB Macdonald's class, nor is he really striving to be I would imagine.
Patrick, your defense of Rees is passionate, but odd in light of your frustation with Garden City (would Rees agree with your position on the 12th hole or the rest of the course? I highly doubt it). Your many questions ultimately lack an answer because no one can point to a course that Rees has worked at (old or one of his own) that seems to qualify him to be able to discuss The National's architecture, much less to make suggestions about its maintenance or future. He comes from a completely different school of design, a different approach to golf, and from what I've seen, in no way resembles what Macdonald's vision for golf or The National is all about. Rees doing something at National would be like John Tesh interpreting Mozart's No. 21, Thomas Kinkade restoring a perfect Sargent, or Britney Spears suggesting on how to update Aretha Franklin's Respect for today's radio listener. Just different eras, different styles, different motives, different levels of quality that have nothing to do with time or the other excuses that people like Fazio use to justify their lack of substance.
Coore and Crenshaw would tell the National to leave the place alone, to appreciate what Olson did and not even think of changing a thing. Why would they do this, and yet why do people like Rees or Fazio jump at these opportunities and offer their services (usually for free)? Think about that...please, it's what this is all about.
Tom Paul, your defense of memberships is always interesting, but again, I have to wonder if there is a malady of sorts out there on Long Island and elsewhere in the east where there seems to be a particularly inflated sense of self within memberships of classic courses that do not need to be touched. Perhaps too much new money. Or just not a whole lot of sense or education that has done much beyond train people to memorize, add, subtract and conform, and definitely not pick up a book (like Scotland's Gift-Golf!). Its growing old to watch the utter lack of common sense displayed by the old blueblood clubs and pitiful to watch the lightweights at the USGA shrug their shoulders at all of this.
Oddly, the members at Chicago Golf Club don't seem afflicted with anything but a keen sense of what they have and that it must be held sacred regardless of how inept the USGA is or will continue to be. The same could be said for Fisher's Island. Valley Club. Cypress Point. Kittansett. Plainfield. There are other examples of memberships who understand what they have and have figured out ways to preserve their treasures. They usually start by not asking the help of architects who piggyback their way onto the old courses to distract us from just how ordinary their new work is.
I hope we don't have to check The National or Maidstone off the list of clubs that no bette, because if those places are trying to keep up with the times, then we might as well just throw in the towel.
What's next at The National? Cherry wood lockers, dark green carpet, Muzak and Linda Hartough replacing the founding member sculptures in the clubhouse? :)
Geoff
-
Geoff,
Rees has been a member of NGLA for quite some time.
I believe that he would agree with me regarding the restoration of the 12th hole at GCGC, as well as the restoration of the second fairway and trench bunker on the 7th hole.
While his style is distinctly different from CBM's that doesn't mean that he doesn't appreciate it, and the architecture at NGLA. He has told me so, directly. The term I use, the GENIUS of the architecture at NGLA was his term, that I understand and have adopted.
I can't speak for an entire membership, but the individual members I know understand and appreciate what they have in NGLA.
That doesn't mean that any given administration can't make mistakes. One hopes that public opinion would have an impact on any attempt to alter the design integrity of that golf course.
If I could, and the topography of the land permited, I would lengthen # 3, # 7 and # 8 at the tee, and perhaps make an additional tee on # 12, and perhaps lengthen # 15, # 16 and # 18.
I am sure that you are aware that TOC has lengthened their tees over the years, and noone seems upset with that.
Noone feels it has undermined the design integrity of the golf course, and that is the key or sole issue.
Does a change alter or undermine the design integrity of the golf course. If it doesn't, I don't see the harm. If it does, perhaps it shouldn't be embarked upon.
Tim Weiman,
You can deal with reality or bay at the moon.
You must have missed an earlier post where I indicated that the distance problem was systemic, crossing all levels of golfers, and courses must adjust, as they have throughout history.
I'm as much concerned about the distance problem as you or anyone else, but I'm not going back to woodies and spalding irons, are you ?
-
Geoff:
I think your responses and reactions to these things are interesting too, God knows you certainly have a real sense of the value of things architectural and you do understand them so well.
But I can't help but think how you could logically ever expect that memberships generally would ever come remotely close to looking at architecture the same way you do and valuing it and understanding it the same way you do!
Many of these people I know at some of these clubs are not the evil, egotistical people they're made out to be. Certainly not at Merion they aren't and I think you should come to the realization that the things that have gone on at Riviera with the people who control that club are not in the same universe that the people who control Merion are, and they probably shouldn't be cast in the same light!
You mention Fisher and Chicago, Kittanset, Valley, Cypress, Plainfield! Those memberships, in general, are not that much different than other memberships around the country. The fortunate thing for those clubs is they clearly have people in control of those clubs that do understand things about architecture and they have taken the time and the effort to do something about it!
The list can be added to significantly now because of an extrapolation effect or a critical mass, I think in understanding through education and efforts of that sort. Clubs that can be added to that list are Aronimink now, Gulph Mills, maybe LuLu, maybe San Antonio, Mountain Lake, and a host of others I can't even remember now but am aware of!
This is all encouraging and it doesn't happen because entire memberships suddenly wake up and understand what they have. It never happens that way, someone has to help them out, someone has to help educate them and even something as simple as the logistics of that is difficult and demanding!
Have any of you EVER tried to hold the attention of a general membership for anything longer than 1 1/2 hours? I doubt you have because it's damn near impossible to do all over America!
I'm not asking you to take my word for it, ask anyone who's tried!! But there are plenty out there who are trying to do this, to educate memberships and I think so far they are doing very well. Even Golfclubatlas, I think, is doing it's part to help make connections!
Some may think it's an everlasting uphill fight but that is not my experience. If anyone has the opportunity to explain this stuff to a general membership and they can do it well, if they know how to do it they can be very successful time after time, because basically all these clubs and memberships think about the same way, they have the exact same concerns, fears, opinions, one after the other. The only real surprise is who those inevitable people who will resist aggressively (generally relatively small) actually turn out to be.
Geoff, If you could go around giving 1 1/2 hour seminars to these clubs akin to the presentations I've seen you give you would be amazed by your success rate. You explain these things to memberships logically and the vast majority will get it, I've seen it myself--simply because basically it is SO commonsensical--and memberships generally pick up on that if it's presented to them correctly.
That's what it takes, in my opinion--just keep getting the word out little by little, who the architects are that do things well and those that don't for various courses!
But whole memberships getting it, understanding architecture, being seriously interested in it on their own with no help and no attempt at education being offered them? Forget it, it's virtually never happened that way in America that I'm aware of!
-
Pat Mucci:
In fact, I didn't miss your earlier post and your stated concern about golfers who play from forward tees.
I just had this weird idea that they might decide to play from the back tees if their Big Berthas made it necessary.
You want reality: I'll bet the vast majority of golfers really can't handle the back tees on most courses. Why should we modify courses to accommodate a small elite?
The golf industry has turned the rationale for technology on its head. It is supposed to lower costs rather than be used to encourage people to spend even more money on an activity.
-
Pat,
I'm sorry, Rees' acknowledging of National's genius, uh, this is something that required a great leap? This qualifies him to analyze the course and potentially do some redesign work there? I don't see how that makes him qualified to talk about the course or make suggestions about its future. Same with Maidstone. I'm sure he's been a member in good standing there for years, during most of the years Karl Olson did some outstanding restoration work at National. I don't ever recall hearing Karl or anyone else praising what a big help Rees was.
And Pat, you really think Rees would agree with you that his dad bungled #12 at Garden City and it should be restored to its pre-Trent Jones state? Come on!
Sign me up as one of those who objects to adding length to the Old Course. :) In fact, I now am against lengthening any course. It's all an endorsement of the USGA's ignorance and of the silly state of the game, with no end in sight. Golf has put up with it too long to the point courses are too long and they can't keep accomodating this nonsense. When does it end, and what does it really accomplish? All of this working around the issue is simply due Wally Uhlien's threats and the current USGA regime's lack of courage.
Tom,
I guess I've reached a point where I sense that members at certain clubs, if they don't have a smart, experienced and charismatic superintendent, become dangerously confident in their views with no room for information. Yet all of the info they need is out there in the form of books, seminars, articles, but the overwhelming sense of entitlement that seems to be running rampant with today's country clubbers entitles them to not need facts or knowledge of architecture. I know, I know, this has always been a component of golf and committees and clubs. But we now have a better understanding of golf history, architecture, maintenance, what holds up best over time, and what must be preserved.
So to watch people ignore the information that is out there because they are lazy or trying to be like the club down the street, I think it's rather sad. We are witnessing the result of an elite that has become satisfied with itself because it has money, it went to the right schools, it is a member a many clubs, therefore it knows what is best. Integrity seems missing from the equation because money apparently entitles people to that as well.
We see this same reticence brought on by entitlement in the USGA. There aren't any Sandy Tatums and Frank Hannigan's and PJ Boatwrights anymore and it's the reason the game is headed in the wrong direction.
Sadly, instead of just leaving things alone because they don't know anything, today's elite green committees act so that people think, "well they are doing something, they are in power, they must know what they are doing, who are we to question them."
And boy has this led to some awful results, with more on the way.
Geoff
-
Geoff:
Can't agree with those that believe that certain classic courses should NEVER be touched or lengthened.
Where is it written that all the good ideas for a piece of ground or for the nuances of a particular golf hole have already been thought of and executed?
Should Wilson and Flynn not have made any changes to Merion prior to the '24 Amateur if Ardmore Avenue wasn't an issue? Should Augusta National not have made major changes to at least half their holes over the years? Should NGLA not have moved the original 14th green and/or added longer tee boxes on at least half the holes from CBM's original length? Should Donald Ross and CBM been prohibited from "refining" their respective masterpieces over the years? Should Pete Dye be prohibited from continuing to examine his career long work-in-progress, Crooked Stick?
Should bunkers not be moved forward to bring them back into play?
The original shot values of classic courses are impossible to replicate without some major surgery in places. Except for greatly increased green speed, golf HAS gotten easier since the Golden Age.
I love what I've seen of C&C's work but I just can't get Gentle Ben's genuflecting to the sacred, immutable work of his "ancestors" that has become diluted in terms of the original shot values intended by the original design.
The problem, as you pointed out, is that when the job is bungled, it's a tough thing to reverse - even after the bungling has been acknowledged.
But such is the price of progress, I'm afraid. Hopefully, the mistakes of the bunglers are noted by others and not repeated.
-
Tim Weiman,
Golfers who play from the forward and middle tees are using high tech equipment to thwart the architectural features they face, defeating the intended design principles.
It's not just the golfers playing the back tees.
Geoff,
Donald Ross continued to alter Pinehurst # 2 for 26 years, so I don't know that I agree with the position that classic courses should never be touched.
My litmus test is whether or not the design integrity remains intact.
Karl Olson didn't restore anything at NGLA, he rediscovered many things at NGLA and there is a distinction.
I think, given the choice of leaving the 12th hole at GCGC the way it is, or embarking on a sympathetic restoration, Rees would vote for the later.
I get the sense that you have information relative to some potential work at NGLA that I am unaware of. That sense also leads me to believe that Karl's departure may be related.
If you can share reliable information and shed some light on specifics, it would be appreciated and enlightening.
Rees understands more about architecture and the classics than most would give him credit for.
I will say that any architect that undertakes making substantive changes to NGLA would have to have their head examined as it's a no win situation.
-
Pat - I, too, get that sense when reading Geoff's comments.
Geoff - Unless you are privy to some knowledge that Olsen
was run out of Southampton because of some ultimatum that was given to the effect of, it's either Rees or Olsen, I find it pretty difficult to find fault with the NGLA membership.
Also, I don't subscribe to the prescriptivist view of what constitutes a proper restoration that many on here do, i.e. that a proper restoration begins and ends with the choice of architect - "it's C&C, Hanse, Pritchard, Silva, Forse, or its a redesign." I'm typically with Pat, that the membership ultimately bears the responsibility of what results from its decision to undergo a restoration. If a restoration project yields a finished product that bears no resemblance to the original design intent, blame the architect, because he didn't follow instruction, or blame the membership in charge for not enforcing its mandate. I don't think you can have it both ways, as you seem to be suggesting.
-
Chipoat,
I just don't know how to try to describe the importance of The National to folks like you who subscribe to the change=progress or the change=the chance of progress and golly, follies like Merion-just-have-to-happen-along-the-great march-to-progress mindset. Some things are better left untouched. The National is one of those. Restoration yes, Rees-toration a big no-no. Again, if the membership is dissatisfied with the playing values of the course because of technology or they just break par everytime and it grows tiresome or whatever it is (I doubt it's too "easy"), they should go somewhere else and leave the course to the hundreds of thousands of people who would adore it just the way it is. Which is my point in this thread, I just don't sense many of the people at these great old courses appreciate what they have, and I think it's kinda sad. Particularly because I wrote in my next book that these courses are in great hands! (I'm going to try and get this edited before it hits the press.)
Pat,
I'm sorry to say this, but if you don't not understand what Karl Olson did at The National, then we really can't even discuss this. If you deny that what he did is restoration, when many of the most knowledgable people in golf cite it as the best restoration work ever undertaken, well, I think you need to do some homework before saying much more about this course or any other. I understand what you want to do for Garden City is probably quite noble and restoration (or is it rediscovery???), but frankly, if I were an architect doing restoration work at your course and I read your distinction of restoration v. rediscovery on National, I wouldn't pay much attention to what you have to say. That Karl and your belief that somehow Rees Jones has had something to do with the work there over the years, well, really speaks of not understanding what restoration work is all about. It's about actual work, in the dirt looking at photos, understanding what's in the ground and trying to match that. It's not easy, Karl pulled it off beautifully.
Again, Rees may understand a lot about the classics, but it doesn't show in his work, it never has, and I suspect at this point never will. If you really believed this, wouldn't he be a great candidate for work at Garden City? What a frightening thought.
Also, I never said all courses shouldn't be touched. I think there are great benefits to restoration work carried out by the right people. CB Macdonald would have the green light to touch National today, but no one else. Citing Pinehurst is ridculous in this case. This is precisely my point though, golfers at these courses view themselves in the vein of Macdonald and Ross, meanwhile, they couldn't carry their bags much less even be qualified to discuss what is out there in the ground!
Now, lengthening is a whole different story which I'm against now, because we are now in a fast moving race with no end to keep stretching courses or rebunkering them to protect silly things like par, all for what? So companies can make golfers continue to consume their latest and greatest new equipment? So members can feel good about themselves? So David Fay can keep his job another year? The playing of golf will become secondary to consuming equipment, if it hasn't in a sense already shifted this way.
Eventually this will all crack and there will be a regulated ball of some kind that these easy old courses :) will be able to sell, so I think it's wiser to just wait it out than do more damage by stretching things out because some golfers are fearful of low scores.
And no, I won't share my sources, but if you dig long enough, I'm sure you'll find out what you need to know at The National. It may all work out, but I don't have a good feeling about it.
Geoff
-
Would think that restoration is "very similar" to rediscovery, also Pete Dye working on the OC or CS is much different than another man working on a "classic" CBM and/or DR. If Bill and Ben where to do something to Sand Hills I see nothing at issue with this.
Chip, moving bunkers that have been "naturally found" and built into the land is probably significantly more costly and a more risky way to deal with tech. Very few if any clubs have the $$ that ANGC does.
-
Chip
I don't buy your examples of why change is good. You are absolutely right: Ross, Macdonald and Wilson/Flynn perfected their masterpieces over a period of years, and because that search for perfection today they are recognized as three of the greatest examples of golf architecture ever created - masterpieces. Masterpieces created by three of the greatest minds who have ever practiced the art of golf design. Even more reason to leave them be.
Frank Lloyd Wright altered his home Taliesin over a period of twenty-five or thirty years, constantly tinkering with it, does that mean we should allow a current architect to add a new addition or remodel the interior to accomdate modern conveniences. That is actually an impossiblity due to Architecture recognizing their important works, protecting and preserving them -- not allowing lesser architects to screw with them.
ANGC is a perfect example of the danger in believing that change is good. Sure you might get lucky with a single change, or perhaps two, by an extremely talented architect, but keep it up over the years with a number of lesser architects and you are left with an inferior design.
Interesting you should cite Crooked Stick, I believe that most would disagree with that example. What was once a course comparable to The Golf Club, and surely one of Dye's most important works (if not his most important), is now part TGC, part PGA West, part TPC, part who knows what. More mut than purebred. I understand he wanted to make changes to TGC and was told thanks, but no thanks.
Geoff makes a good point about increasing yardage, we are at the end of the line. Once a modest increase yardage was the simple cure for 95% of all courses. Today far too many course have been stretched to their limit and remodeling is the preferred alternative. I don't consider this progress. And the percentage of courses that will be remodeled will continue to grow if the trend is not haulted. The governing bodies need to protect the game, which will in turn help protect golf architecture's most important courses.
Change is not automatically bad and every course should be evaluated seperately. However certain architects are recognized as masters of their art and their most important designs should be preserved and protected. For every example of a positive change to their work, their are ten to twenty mistakes. Those odds need to be changed.
-
Geoff,
I stand by categorizing Karl's work as a "rediscovery" effort and not restoration work.
I also stand by my statement of September 14th that Rees has been a member of NGLA for a long time and is consulted on the golf course. No where did I ever state that Rees is responsible for any particular change to the golf course.
If you feel otherwise, I'd appreciate your pointing it out to me.
To me, restoration work implies construction and dramatic changes, like the 12th bunker and green complex at GCGC, pre and post RTJ changes.
Karl Olsen did none of that at NGLA.
Not one green was rebuilt, Nor was one bunker built anew.
In addition to keeping NGLA fast and firm, as conditions permited, Karl "reclaimed" lost greens, not through construction, but through mowing and nuturing.
The footpads remained intact, and weren't altered one iota.
They were rediscovered or reclaimed.
# 10 and # 11 are prime examples.
Tees were extended or added, but I don't consider those modifications, restorations. If anything they are alterations consistent with the design integrity of the golf course, and, In my opinion, that includes the left side tee at # 16
I understand that some bunkers were rediscovered that had been grown over by shrubs, on the 8th hole for example, but I am unaware of any new bunker construction, or new work done on the golf course in the last 20 years.
So that we don't get bogged down in degrees, I don't view tree clearing, on the scale done at NGLA as a restoration in the same sense that I view rebuilding or relocating greens and finding and restoring or relocating bunkers. Perhaps, we differ on this aspect.
If my recall is faulty, and Karl performed restoration work, please correct me.
I'm not trying to diminish Karl's efforts, I think they were admirable, and resulted in superior playing surfaces throughout the golf course, and enhanced features, but, I don't see the word "RESTORATION" as the appropriate word to describe his work. "RECLAIMATION" seems more descriptive.
You and other architectural experts may disagree with me, but that's how I see it.
As recently as one hour ago, I spoke to an individual at the heart of these issues, who assured me that only minor tee work was being considered, work that had been on the agenda for some time, such as the tee at # 18, the tee at
# 13, etc.,etc.. Now it is possible that the information I received is not complete, or that anything beyond what I was told is not for dissemination. But, I would hope that the party, whom I have known for about 40 years, is being candid with me.
I believe CBM tinkered with NGLA for as many as 22 years.
Ask yourself, If he were alive today, do you think he would continue to tinker, and do you think he would lengthen tees to retain the strategy and design integrity of the holes ?
My instincts lead me to believe that our respective sources are at the core of the issue, and that time will tell which direction NGLA is headed, and the respective roles that Rees or anyone else will undertake. But, let's not condemn a man, who to date, has done nothing to harm the golf course.
I think you would agree, that would be unfair.
-
Tom MacWood:
So you're saying that only a course's original designer (Ross at Pinehurst, Flynn/Wilson at Merion, CBM at NGLA) should be franchised to amend/improve?
This is another chocolate/vanilla, blonde/brunette item that makes this website fun. Geoff and you say "tomaato" and I say "tomahto". Let's not call the whole thing off, though.
Geoff:
While not all of the work at Merion turned out as envisioned, I wouldn't call the aggregate effort a "folly" by any means. The playability of the golf course has been improved for the most part IMO.
Furthermore, if a certain bunker contracting firm has to clean up their act as a result of their work there, and committees at other clubs pay more attention to the aesthetics of bunkers from now on, then what permanent damage has been done?
I like your work and am looking forward to your next book.
-
Chipoat,
It's interesting that the lengthening of classic golf courses has been going on for 50-60 years or more and no one was critical. Not one voice raised up against these changes.
Yet today, some assert that if a classic course has a tee extended 20-30 yards that the very fabric of the architecture is at risk. I don't agree with that.
I think each hole must be looked at individually with respect to added length, the resultant strategies and options and the angles of attack.
I certainly think the 2nd hole at NGLA is so far superior today, with the 30 or so added yards to the tee than the tee adjoining the 1st green, which would let some hit irons and certainly 3-woods onto the green today. The new extended tee reintroduces options and risk/reward at the highest levels.
Yet, NOT ONE VOICE objected to that change.
WHY IS THAT ?
And, if that 2nd tee extension was under construction today, under the supervision of REES, do you think that those same silent voices would suddenly rediscover their tongues in wails of objection and ruination ?
I was scheduled to play NGLA yesterday, and regret not doing so for a variety of reasons. You may recall my concern for the angle of attack from the new first tee, and the impact on the risk/reward that existed for tee shots taking the direct or slightly left shot to the green. I'd like to see and judge the work and results for myself. Perhaps later this year I'll get the opportunity. Would you be interested in joining me ?
I love everything about the golf course at NGLA. I certainly don't want to see substantive changes made to the course.
But, before everyone gets worked up in a froth, similar to the bunker issue at Merion, shouldn't we know the FACTS ?
Tom Paul, are you listening ? ;D
Let's not jump the gun, let's try to find out what is intended, by whom, and under whose architectural hand, and then draw conclusions, praise or criticism.
This feeding frenzy based on conjecture is counter productive to all those involved and concerned.
-
Chip
I'm saying that important architectural works like Merion, Pinehurst #2 and NGLA should be protected from 'improvements'. Just as important works of architecture are protected for future generations to enjoy and study. Of the most talented architects of our modern era, how many do you think would accept a commission to improve these courses? I suspect none, unfortunately there are plenty of others who would.
Pat
Many of our great courses were designed with flexibility in mind; but there is a limit to their flexibility. And we've reached it.
Moving bunkers is more than adding length. How do you duplicate the same feel, aesthetic and playing characteristics by moving bunkers on an undulating site? RTJ said he simply relocated bunkers at Oakland Hills, closer study reveals he did much more. There have been legions of courses altered in the last fifty years without a peep (Bel-Air, Scioto, Saucon Valley-Old, Timber Point, Canton Brookside, Garden City, Yale etc.), I'm not sure what that proves other than a lack of appreciation for interesting architecture during that period.
I agree we should not jump the gun before all the facts are in, but aren't you concerned by who has been engaged? Geoff asked you a very good question, why would you involve an architect who has NEVER shown a great sensativity or competence in working with great old courses? Especially when you have one of the most talented men - if not the most talented man - in that field working in-house? Which goes back to the original question of this thread.
-
Tom MacWood,
The issue of moving bunkers is a difficult one.
In a previous response to Geoff Childs I raised the issue of the near tee fairway bunkers on the 16th hole at GCGC.
The first bunker (and I'll measure it tomorrow) I estimate is about 150 yards from the back tee. It is a magnificent bunker, deep, with steep walls, rather square, but, it is practically useless in the play of the golf course today.
The tee is back as far as it can go, right up to the property line.
What has happened over the years is that the strategic significance of the bunker has been lost.
To carry that old bunker gave one a prefered angle of attack to the green, avoiding it right put one precariously close to the woods, and avoiding it left gave you a most difficult angle into the green which included carrying additional bunkers near the green.
Like a vestigal organ it stands without function today.
So what should be done ?
Duplicate another bunker more in play ?
Move that bunker back into play ?
I don't know that there is an absolute answer but I would think, if you were going to be true to the design principles of Emmett/Travis that that bunker or its twin should be created in a position that brings it and its strategy back into play.
So in that particular circumstance, on that particular hole, I would favor creating an exact duplicate of that bunker, in its intended strategic location, leaving the original bunker in its current position.
The 16th hole would be a better hole from a strategic and risk/reward perspective. The playability would be enhanced.
The golf course would benefit.
I'd be interested in your theoretical opinion on the above example and I would be interested in the opinion of golfers who have played that hole and have observed the bunker in question, and its relative impact or lack of impact on the strategy, risk/reward and play of the hole.
Could you sldo tell me, which bunkers on which holes at NGLA Rees or anyone else has proposed moving or duplicating at another location ?
Is everyone tilting at windmills or is there a definite plan to make alterations, I'd like to know.
I'll address Geoff's other questions in the next couple of days as it's getting late and I have a hectic few days in front of me
-
I'm not sure your GCGC example shows that moving bunkers is acceptable - especially at NGLA. Do you think the Cape bunker at Westward Ho!, the Cardinal at Prestwick or Hell at St.Andrews should be moved? The obvious strategic influence of these bunkers has been lost or severely altered - especially for the top 1%. On the other hand, the exhiliration in seeing your ball fly over these famous bunkers is no doubt still high. Could they be moved and replicated? Only a fool would try.
I have no idea what they are going to do NGLA - as for moving bunkers, you brougth up/discussed the possibility. My main concern is with who is leaving NGLA and who is moving into the void. And the same with Maidstone.
-
Patrick:
Always pleased to be in your company anywhere. With or without me, I think you'll find the effect of the new first tee at National to be modest, at most. The carry over the left side is now 5-7 yards further and the far bunker in the center is no longer "dead ahead", but there's only a 15 foot difference between old and new. If they didn't know the tee box had been shifted a bit to the right, I'm not sure many people would even notice.
Tom MacWood:
While we seem destined to disagree on this issue, your observation about today's architects taking on the "tinkering" of any masterpiece like National is noteworthy. It seems to me that there's a lot of reputational risk to an established architect in doing major work to a classic course if the job gets bungled by them, their contractors or interfering members/committees. A small job (a few new tees, a couple re-positioned bunkers) which would be "safer" is probably not a financially attractive proposition to an already-successful architect.
However, I'll bet an architect who has a sub-specialty of "restoring" golden age courses would LOVE to take on such an assignment - big or small. The "Open Doctor" would be my first example to support this.
-
Geoff Shackelford and Tom MacWood:
Really good posts on your part--really good! I can tell from two years on here that the issue of actually making architectural changes on certain courses has been tiptoed around on this website by some and it's a hard issue to take a square and staunch position on but you two have!
You have said on certain courses that really do have tremendous architectural significance and historical architectural interest that they should just be left untouched--no matter what!
I agree with you completely! Eventually the buck just has to stop somewhere and that's where it should. The technology issue is a cause that has and is having an ongoing negative effect and that should be dealt with. Courses such as NGLA should wait for it to be dealt with and do what they can to see that happens just so preserving them will be more generally done and accepted!
This is a hard issue, always has been, and also will be. I agree that NGLA, and those of that stature and significance should be left untouched so they can remain what they are but although in a way they are somewhat like the Mona Lisa to us they are not hanging on a wall under glass, they are still played on and always will be.
Nevertheless, the buck should stop somewhere and those courses, at least, is where it should stop.
Pat:
Your invention of a couple of new terms to attempt to make "distinctions" on this subject really isn't necessary or needed. Words like "rediscovery" or "reclamation" to make distinctions on whether "restoration" on NGLA took place and will continue to or not is just smoke to cloud and confuse and deflect a very important issue.
We all on here pretty much recognize what proper restoration is and isn't and at this point I really don't think the subject needs any sub-categories or sub-headings!
Particular changes are of varying degrees of "tampering with great architectural art", and things like trying to add tee length has to be carefully considered on a hole by hole basis if considered at all. But changes like moving bunkering or changing any of the actual "bodies of holes or greens" on an NGLA, for instance, should be absolutely unacceptable if a club like that really does understand what they have!
-
Tom MacWood,
I wasn't the one who brought up the subject of moving bunkers, others were, I merely provided actual examples of where I feel the process has merit. You avoided answering the question. As to the bunkers you mention, perhaps those should stay exactly where they are, but that doesn't mean that every bunker should stay exactly where it is, or have its twin created in a more strategic location today.
I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way, but NGLA will survive well, no matter who the new superintendent is.
The "Will of the Membership" is the most important ongoing factor at any club, not interchangeable employees.
I'm sure NGLA will remain as it always has, with good hands at the helm.
TEPaul,
Could you list for me the restoration work you think was done at NGLA ?
Then we can ascertain if it involved any construction, relocation, etc., etc., versus reclaimation vis a vis mowing patterns etc., etc.. By dealing with specific facts we'll be better able to determine how to categorize each project.
F
-
Tom MacWood, Geoff Shakelford and Tom Paul-
I agree with you totally.
I think it's pretty easy to pick out the NGLA's as museum pieces if that term fits for a course whose architecture should be retained no matter what. Myopia Hunt fits the bill pretty well too. Who could imagine building modern greens complexes on that course?
But a question that's interesting to me is just where the boundary between historically significant and not among the significant works lies? I think Tom MacWood said it well a while back during our Bethpage battles. He said (Sorry if I'm misquoting) that if the membership would enjoy playing the restored course more then the altered one then go ahead and bring back the strategy and playability the architect intended.
-
Can someone (anyone) tell me unequivocally that NGLA has indeed contracted, or engaged Rees, whether formally or informally, to "restore" the course. And also, whether that came at the expense of Karl Olsen?
until then, this discussion seems far too abstract to take seriously. Right now it seems like we're falling into the Holmes trap of "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a panic."
-
SPDB:
I don't see any panic here. We are simply trying to have the best possible dialogue we can about a prominent venue that is is rumored to be considering golf course modifications.
If it turns out that the members rejects any modifications to the course, no harm will be done.
If the members really are considering changes, GCA is simply one more resource for them to consider in their decision making process.
-
Tim,
it just seems that we're putting the cart before the horse here. Many seem to already be faulting NGLA for letting Karl go in favor of Rees, when I have seen no evidence that even suggests that. All I am looking for is an answer to a few simple questions which, I think, will help frame this discussion somewhat.
1. Is Rees going to be doing work to NGLA.
2. Did Karl resign (or get the axe) because of that decision
I think that answers to these questions may provide some needed insight to what's going on out there, if anything.
-
Chip.....I might stay out of this one....Lots of bizarre conjecture...
-
No real lover of golf with artistic understanding would undertake to measure the quality or fascination of a golf hole by a yard-stick, any more than a critic of poetry would attempt to measure the supreme sentiment expressed in a poem by the same method. One can understand the meter, but one cannot measure the soul expressed. It is absolutely inconceivable.
Today there seems to be a constant endeavor to make golf commonplace, to emasculate it, as it were, of its finer qualities.
-
SPDB:
The answers you are seeking might shed some light, but I wonder if they also cross the line into personnel matters at the club that perhaps we should avoid.
We are a golf architecture discussion group. NGLA is one of the all time great examples of the art form we love. Technological changes have presented golf clubs with serious questions. We should try to help them answer those questions.
But, I worry about personalizing this issue and how productive or counterproductive that might be.
That is why I've raised the issue of "groupthink", a theory which dates back to analysis of choices policy makers made during the Vietnam war. The author (Irving Janis, if a remember my political science classes well enough) made a point to stress the intellectual strength and integrity of the people he studied. Nonetheless, they all fell victim to thinking like a group, reinforcing their own perceptions and failing to seriously question the fundamental assumptions behind their policy perscriptions.
That is what I see happening here. Well meaning, very bright people make reasonable sounding arguments that really amount to nothing more than continuing the golf technology arms race.
We spend money on new equipment which forces us to spend more money modifiying the courses we play only to encourage still more "technology improvements" and the same cycle starts all over again. To what end? For what purpose? How does the never ending cycle of changes really improve the game?
I had hope that Augusta National was club uniquely positioned to bring some sanity to the whole situation. Unfortunately, it does not appear their leadership is inclined to. To the contrary, they have set an example fueling the golf technology arms race.
So, instead we hope clubs like NGLA will provide a different, more thoughtful approach, perhaps something similiar to the fine example Prestwick has set: don't worry about people thinking the course is "obsolete". Decades after the last Open Championship was held there, golfers from around the world still treasure the experience of playing the course.
I don't think of Prestwick as a "museum piece". It provides a joy few other courses can match.
I'm sure for many, many years to come people will also treasure the experience of NGLA, even if (or perhaps because) nothing is done to change the course.
-
Tom MacWood and Geoff Shackleford.
NGLA has had several alterations over the last ten or so years, mostly the LENGTHENING of tees, and yet neither or you, nor any other critic on this site said boo.
The first tee was shifted and lengthened within the last year and neither one of you or anyone else, except myself, questioned the alteration or said boo.
NGLA has consulted with Rees over the years while he has been a member, while these changes were made, and neither one of you, or anyone else said boo.
Now all of a sudden, NGLA intends to continue with some tee work, and I would imagine that Rees will be consulted and all of a sudden there's an uproar.
Why ? And why were you silent on all the other changes including the change to the 1st tee ?
To address a question that you and Geoff raised about the quality of the work and its adherence to the original architect......where was your outrage when a wonderful Flynn course was put under the knife by Tom Doak,
at Atlantic City ?
Oh, that's right, I forgot, now waterfalls are OK because one of your fair haired boys has been told to build one. But, when everybody else was told to build one, that was a no no.
What a laughable double standard some of you employ.
Rees refused, time and time again, to cater to Arthur Goldberg's desire and intent to build a Las Vegas style golf course on that site. Rees argued on many points including telling Arthur that a Flynn golf course and a great deal of history and tradition was contained in the 170 acres he purchased and that those comodities were priceless and shouldn't be destroyed in favor of modern desert glitz.
Rees was fired by Arthur and Tom Doak was eventually retained.
Why was there no outcry when the original Flynn course was put under the knife and altered forever, Tom MacWood ?
Or, is it okay for every architect except Rees and FAZIO ?
Now I think Tom Doak did a nice job on the golf course, understanding what his marching orders were from Arthur Goldberg, and his designates. I think Atlantic City CC is a good, sporty, and challenging golf course, but it's NO FLYNN RESTORATION, it's a clear alteration and departure from the original golf course, yet not a peep from you fellows, WHY ?
I also noticed that there wasn't much criticism when FAZIO duplicated 8 holes at PV for their short course, and added 2 more of his own.
Was his work so good there that you were speechless ?
You can't have it both ways fellows.
Be consistent, and don't be disengenuous in your criticisms.
-
Boo!
-
Pat,
Thanks for the explanation, Clintonian in some respects, revealing a complete lack of knowledge in other ways, thanks for putting it up online for all to see. Sadly, I now have a much better grasp of the Garden City situation as well thanks to your reasoning. I can see why your views on that situation are not respected and will never be heard. The situation you lament there is basically the same potential situation that many of us feel may potentially happen with The National. Unfortunately, you don't see the irony and I'm not going to bother to try to help you grasp the big picture here. It's beyond your grasp, I'm afraid. I would hope someday you will consider reading some of the old texts on architecture, I think you'd be enlightened...or maybe not.
Geoff
-
I agree and furthermore this entire ongoing attempt by Pat to prove bias is getting boring and sidetracking architectural discussion.
I don't think there is bias here, although there is some strong opinion about various architects, but Pat has raised that specter, a bogus one, and now many of us spend all this time defending ourselves from being considered biased!
Some of us like certain architects and say so and also say why. Just doing that alone apparently makes Pat think that shows bias against architects like Fazio and Jones. I guess he expects if someone says something nice about an architect, logically they should then say something nice about all other architects, and certainly Jones and Fazio because failing to do that would constitute bias towards those unmentioned architects.
These "bias" threads are a bloody waste of time, in my book!
Pat even asked me in the last day if I'm afraid to question who he called "the guru Doak". I recall questioning Doak about one thing or another on every course of his I know, and he answered. One of those threads even created a major league argument on here with some guy who asked me how I could ever question an architect like Tom Doak.
But I guess Pat missed that one too, or else it's just convenient for him to overlook it when he starts another thread defending a few highly successful architects from "bias" on Golfclubatlas!
I'm not getting involved in anymore threads that discuss this "straw man" Pat calls "bias" and I suggest others do the same!
-
Geoff,
Interesting post about GCGC.
Are you saying that you favor the continuation of the existing
12th hole at GCGC and that you disagree with my position that a sympathetic restoration should be embarked upon ?
I asked some questions about NGLA and Atlantic City, but rather than answer them, you chose to tell me I know nothing, but you, you know everything. If you know everything, address the questions I raised about NGLA.
Tell me, specifically, how I'm clueless about NGLA and GCGC.
Why didn't you object to shifting the 1st tee at NGLA, I did.
I never knew that reading books makes one an architectural expert.
TEPaul,
It doesn't surprise me that when difficult questions are asked, you choose not to answer them. But, how can you not address them when your beloved FLYNN is involved.
-
Tom Paul:
I completely agree with you that all this talk about bias is a complete waste of time.
However, you might be interested to know that offline I did have communications with a member at a prominent club who began lurking here a while back.
Interestingly, he described GolfClubAtlas as "neutral".
Given all this talk about "bias" we keep hearing, I was a bit surprised, but thought it said something positive about our treehouse.
-
Pat:
You've got to stop badgering people on this bias thing! I already told you what I know and don't know about Atlantic City. Although it's been changed perhaps we will do some research on what it was before Doak got there but I don't know that now so how do you expect me to answer you on Flynn at AC?
With GeoffShac, it's pretty clear he's saying NGLA should be left alone, period! I don't really see why we need to go over other things that have been done or GCGC's holes or something like that. What's done is done, this is today, most of us are talking about what we hope will not happen to NGLA!
Maybe they don't even have plans to make chances, we don't even know that at this point--but one can hope (not)!
-
Tim
Are you sure that there was not some static on the line and what he really meant to say was "neutered?"
-
Pat: maybe we should simply all listen to you no matter which way you're blowing in the wind. If you want to restore the 12th at GCGC, let's do that; if you want to move the bunkers at the 16th, let's do that, too.
With regard to Atlantic City CC, I've certainly never told anyone it was a sensitive restoration. The client, at times, has tried to have it both ways in telling the press and public what they've done, but I have not.
Rees Jones did have that job at one point, but I'm not sure you have your facts straight on how he got uninvolved -- at least that is not at all what Billy Ziobro and Arthur Goldberg told me. (But, since it's second-hand info and I've never talked to Rees Jones about it, I'll decline to say anything more.)
I've been saying for years that the goal of the Donald Ross Society should be to identify the few Ross courses which are best preserved and should remain so: not, as it is today, a network of contacts for playing Ross courses and getting jobs to "restore" them.
I'd love to see Golf Club Atlas evolve into the same thing -- a credible group which would help preserve some of the great courses. If it happened, I would feel a lot less guilty about getting out of the restoration business. But you're going to have to be pretty selective about which courses fall under the category of "landmarks," or no one will take you seriously.
-
Disappointing shot, Rich - I hope you were kidding.
I don't think anyone wants this site to actually have power other than through discussion & persuasive influence.
-
I think you all should chill a little bit and consider the fact that Karl has been at the National for 15+ years....and it was just time for a change.....from his perspective....from the club's perspective...either...or...or both.....You are reading way too much into the ramifications of all of this.....
-
Sebonac,
Very well put! To many are jumping to conclusions.
-
Sorry George (and Tim)
I just thought that this thread was going way over the top and wanted to inject a bit of self-deprecating humor. I'm glad that Sebonac jumped in too to remind us of the facts.
Cheers
Rich
-
No problem, Rich - I'm the one that always cautions about reading too much into someone else's post.
Sebonac & G Tiska -
Your points are well taken. Maybe the answer to Geoff's original question is simply yes, the National's membership does know what it has. You're certainly in a better position to judge than most anyone else on this site. However, I don't think it's a bad thing to raise this concern & speculate about possible consequences. Isn't it better to address these things before the fact rather than after?
-
The latest word from the East End is there's a faction who thinks hole #3 (the Alps) is a relic and that kind of blindness will never do in the future of golf architecture.
They've apparently asked Pat Mucci to come out there to help study the hole to see if it would play better as just a visible green that plays uphill! Not sure at this point if they'll go through with that change but if they do is anyone looking to buy a considerable amount of fill?
Pat is actually more interested in the movement of C.B's gates and the driveway to the right and north to make room for up to 60 addtional tee yards on #18! Pat thinks that decision is a go though and his concern now is when they do move the gates should they also widen them so he can get his Hummer through them with less concern about fender dings.
-
And furthermore, don't anyone say that Pat isn't a restorationist when it comes to "museum piece" golf architecture. He's also a true efficiency expert!
Pat has a plan B that he hasn't unveiled yet but I can tell you the idea is to just sell C.B's gates and from that income reroute the driveway through the middle of the course and that will allow the "rediscovery" (or was it "reclamation") of the cape hole (#14) with its green out in the water!
There's a plan C too! That would entail moving the clubhouse over to where the old hotel used to..... Oops, sorry, it's too early to mention that!!
-
Tom Paul:
I hope you are joking when it comes to the Alps.
-
Tim:
I realize there are some rumors floating around about NGLA, but no, I did not really expect anyone to believe that one!
-
Geoff Shackelford,
Mr. Mucci asked some legitimate questions regarding National and made some comments relative to Rees Jones involvement at National. You responded with a personal attack with respect Mr. Mucci's knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding golf course architecture. Your response was one of the most infantile and pedantic that I've witnessed since discovering this site. To indicate that the 12th hole at Garden City will never be restored due to his lack of knowledge or until he acquires the knowledge YOU feel is necessary is absurd.
Anyone who has played Garden City understands that the 12th hole is an aberation, entirely out of context with the remainder of the golf course, and that it should be restored.
It's ultimate restoration has nothing to do with Mr. Mucci's knowledge, it has to do with a prudent evaluation from hackers to well respected individuals in the field of golf and golf course architecture.
Rather than launch a personal attack on Mr. Mucci why don't you answer his questions. It would seem that you either don't know the answers or you don't want to provide an answer because it will support Mr Mucci's position.
Tom Paul,
Mr Mucci asked you a simple question, to list the alterations or restoration projects at National. You responded by jumping on Mr Shackelford's bandwagon and attacking him, calling him nuts. Why do you find the need to personally attack an individual who asked reasonable questions ? I would suspect that you too don't have the answers, or that the answers would embarrasingly support Mr Mucci's position.
I've sensed for some time, an air of elitism amongst a few.
If they are questioned or challenged, they strike out with personal attacks, diverting the attention from the issues, a rather Clintonian approach, that doesn't benefit this site.
I may not agree with all of Mr Mucci's positions, but I appreciate his candor.
I have been warned by the individuals who refered me to this site, to post at my own risk, that often posters are set upon by others who disagree with their position, so I fully expect to be crucified. I only make one request, prior to attacking me, please answer the questions asked by Mr. Mucci.
Jay
-
JFalk:
Relax will you and see if maybe you can't manage a smile?
Pat Mucci was asked the same questions by us you think he asked us before he asked us!
Since he can't answer our questions his response is to ask us exactly what we asked him! He was the one who stated that Rees has already consulted on a number of holes at NGLA that were changed and when he was asked what those changes were his response was basically the same questions we asked him!
If you think I'm personally attacking Pat Mucci you definitely must be new to this website! Either that or you should probably work on your sense of humor!
You should also know that Pat Mucci has never asked a simple question in his life. His questions aren't even questions at all, they're simple his prelude to an attempt to argue!
But stick with the site and post more and you'll come to see that we really aren't elitists at all, we're just honing the art of Mucci attacking Pat at the same time as he hones the art of Mucci attacking us!
Jay: I tried to send you an email but it didn't work. Do you have your email correctly listed on here?
-
Mr. Falk,
You can characterize my post however you'd like, but yes, I am questioning Mr. Mucci's consistency and whether he has the knowledge and information to support his efforts to question an architect like Doak who has made it his life's work to study architecture. I would like to support Pat's quest to see the 12th restored, but I can't with his inconsistency and obvious disrespect for those who make an effort to study and support their views with well-reasoned insights. You just can't passionately fight to see one hole put back to a certain year and look, and then throw out suggestions for shifting bunkers on the same course for today's game.
Furthermore, suggesting that Rees Jones can restore something to National while Karl Olson just rediscovered it speaks to my point that holes like the 12th at Garden City exist. There was probably a similar parsing of words or self-important views by club members that led to such changes. You can't have it both ways. Restore this, change this for today's game...they don't mix. That's why holes like 12 at Garden City exist, will the same thing happen to The National? I hope not. I suspect not, but with Rees and a new green chairman and a seemingly bizarre desire to try and be like the other courses in the neighborhood, I have to think anything's possible.
When talk of change is considered, no matter how minor, it opens the door to all sorts of possibilities, things that end up looking like the Trent Jones 12th at Garden City even (obviously the extreme). So I'm suggestiong that Pat can't see the inconsistency and the irony here. Why is that? I don't know, but I suspect that reading and listening to those with some experience in golf architecture and construction would enlighten him. Or maybe not.
As for answering his questions, I really don't know why he is asking about waterfalls or Atlantic City CC and disingenous views that I apparently have because I did not object on a post when it came up. That's really a rude stance to take on his part. But I suspect it's a calculated methodology: throw out a lot of questions and when all 40 of them are not answered with cited references (date and time of post, etc...), the person must be lying and making it up as he goes. There are plenty of intelligent people in our country who fall for this distraction tactic. So you have to give Pat credit, it worked with you, but I stand by my statement that he has underminined his quest to see Garden City's 12th restored, and that was my point in suggesting he consider reading up on the subject and understanding some of the things that have gone on in the past and why that would help him formulate a more consistent argument that would be taken seriously.
The whole point of this thread was to simply ask if the membership at National appreciates what it has and what has been done in recent years to "rediscover" the course CB Macdonald created. Is that such an awful thing to ponder? Is there a law that says we are not free to wonder about such things? I think it's been quite informative.
Geoff
-
The only "Rees-toration" that needs to be made at NGLA is for the membership to build entrenchments around the property with anti-personnel and anti-aircraft weapons ready to take on all that wish to desecrate the Holy Land of American Golf Course Architecture.
-
Any speculation on a replacement for Karl?
-
Tom Doak,
Arthur Goldberg was a good personal friend of mine.
I had a little hand in getting the original job for Rees.
Arthur wanted to out-Wynn Steve Wynn, he wanted to out-Trump Donald Trump. He wanted to create a product for his costomers that would be unique. I tried to convince him otherwise. In addition our good friend Mario Formicella tried to do the same. And, simultaneously, Billy Ziobro was also trying to convince Arthur to take a different path.
You benefited from those collective discussions.
Rees supplied several renderings to Arthur, all of which were rejected. Friction/tension was entering the relationship.
On the Friday or Saturday BEFORE the OPEN at Olympic, Arthur tried to reach Rees. He told Rees's office that he must hear from him ASAP and no later than the end of the day.
Rees's office informed Arthur that Rees would be unavailable.
When Arthur hung up the phone, he turned to Wally Barr and said, Fire him, which is what Wally did. He then turned to Billy Ziobro and said, where do we go from here, and the rest is history.
The good thing was that Arthur had softened his position on what HE wanted to do to the golf course, and with Billy Ziobro in charge, a more reasonable course was charted, that enabled you to produce your golf course, a golf course which I have said is sporty, challenging and fun to play. But, we both know it was not a restoration, and I more than anyone understand the CLIENT'S MARCHING ORDERS to you. They would have been a lot worse if it wasn't for Billy Ziobro, Mario Formicell and myself.
With respect to the 12th hole at GCGC, I'll give you and muster whatever member support I can for a REAL sympathetic restoration.
With regard to # 16, as I informed you, that was a theoretical exercise, not an advocacy. Although, at some point in the furture, it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a look at # 10 and the possibility of recapturing the left side bunker in the woods.
-
Pat Mucci:
Do we really want to encourage leaders or members of private golf clubs to believe private business discussions regarding architect selection and/or marching orders will be repeated at GolfClubAtlas?
Please think about the consequences for this site if people start taking things down that road.
If the principals involved care to comment, fine. The rest of us should probably stay away from that sort of thing.
-
Geoff Shackelford,
The FACTS are as follows:
The 12th hole at GCGC exists in its present form.
I have advocated for some time a sympathetic restoration.
You created this thread, and HAVE NOT produced one supporting fact that REES JONES intends to ALTER NGLA, and that the Board and membership at NGLA endorse those phantom changes.
Your entire posting on this subject has been complete
CONJECTURE.
While I would suspect that GB and KO may have spoken to you, one must look at personal perspectives and the influences of recent events. I've spoken to Board Members who assured me no changes other than tee lengthening would take place.
When I asked you to cite specific restoration projects, you respond by telling that I don't understand architecture, that my lack of understanding of architecture and my inconsistency is what is preventing the 12th hole at GCGC from being restored. Like you know.
I have not been inconsistent, you and others have.
The only voice which questioned the relocation and lengthening of the 1st tee at NGLA was mine, not yours, nor anyone else's. But now, some other holes are going to be lengthened and you and others object, talk about inconsistency.
With respect to my questioning Tom Doak, you bet, neither he, nor anyone else is perfect. I also have a duty and a responsibility, in the capacity that I serve the club, to question Tom Doak. How dare you tell me that he is above questioning. How dare you effectively tell me to give him carte blanche at GCGC. That would be shear and utter negligence.
Tom Doak knows infinitely more than I about architecture and building golf courses, but he's dead wrong about the 12th and 7th holes at GCGC. You know it, I know it, and Tom Doak knows it.
With all of your knowledge and expertise, how is it that Riviera is making the changes you and others object to ?
Should I lay the responsibility for failing to halt those changes at your feet, like you tried blame the failure to change the 12th at GCGC at mine ?
Fair play doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
The last thing you're qualified to do is lecture me, and my understanding of architecture.
If you want to debate the facts on any issue, I'd be happy to do so, if you want to debate architectural features, I'd be happy to do so, I you want to debate strategy and playability, I'd be happy to do so. But, don't get so full of yourself that you think that you know everything about architecture, and that people like myself need to go read books in order to bone up on the subject, so that we may become qualified to discuss it with you.
Arrogance doesn't become you.
-
TEPaul,
I asked you to identify changes/alterations/restorations to NGLA and you avoid answering the question.
You take up the gauntlet thrown by Geoff, yet you are totally unaware of ANY proposed changes at NGLA other than what I listed. How can you object to phantom changes that have never been described, or acknowledged ?
I asked why you and others never objected to the lengthening of tees under Karl Olson's watch and you're speechless.
Why should some lengthening of tees in the future upset you ? Why is that different than tees lengthened under Karl Olson ?
I asked you why you didn't cry wolf when Tom Doak surgically altered one of your beloved FLYNN'S works, Atlantic City, and what do you do ? You don't answer me, instead, you sneak over to Atlantic City last wednesday, hoping I wouldn't know that the trespass alarms had gone off, to see what had been done. Would you say the changes are substantive ?
So Doak can alter a treasure, because the owner client ordered him to, but should anyone else touch one of your treasures, the outrage and wails can be heard across the country. Nah, there's no double standard. And, the reason you're getting tired of hearing it, is because it happens so often, and you're in DENIAL ;D
Question: How can two people who agree so much in person, disagree so much on this site ?
Did you really think that you could sneak over to Atlantic City and that I wouldn't find out about it ?
And, should I let this site know that you also were seen sneaking around Galloway, a FAZIO golf course ;D
What's happening to you ?
Perhaps you should start reading some of those books that Geoff Shackelford recommends in order to get a better handle on architecture. ;D You could bone up you know ;D ;D ;D
-
Pat
Very weak. Tom Doak ain't perfect, but I think he would be the first to admit it. But to try to compare Rees with Doak proves how out of touch you are. If ever there was a quick kick on GCA, you need it now. Your bias in regards to Rees has not served you well.
-
Tim Weiman,
So, are you saying that when the facts show Rees in a positive light, I should supress them ? That I shouldn't post anything that shows or indicates that Rees tried to convince the owner to preserve the old Atlantic City Country Club, and not make RADICAL changes ?
Since I was questioned regarding the circumstances and facts, I produced the FACTS.
If you find the FACTS uncomfortable, why request or search for them ?
If you knew Arthur Goldberg, and our relationship, you would not question my response, and neither would Arthur.
Arthur was probably the most efficient casino operator in the business, but he knew very little about golf or golf course architecture. But, he did make DECISIONS.
You worry about what you post, I'll worry about and be responsible for what I post.
-
Tom MacWood,
Where did I compare Tom Doak to Rees Jones ?
-
JFalk,
I've felt, since the day I logged on to GCA that certain architects enjoyed "most favored nation" status.
When I stated same, the assaults began. It's just one of the facets of the site, and something I've become used to.
Most on the site will debate the issue, others resort to name calling and personal attacks when they have no other defense.
That tactic only validates my position.
You'll note, that despite your request, neither Tom Paul or Geoff Shackelford have answered the questions or addressed the issues I raised.
Doesn't that tell you all you need to know?
-
Pat
This thread centers around the NGLA's decision to call in Rees to advise, which you tried to defend by bringing TDoak and GCGC in to it. Very strange move for someone who claims to be interested in golf architecture.
-
Patrick;
I've tried to stay out of this discussion, since early on when I weighed in with a hypothetical response that I "hoped Rees Jones would tell to the powers that be at NGLA and Maidstone to sit tight". I stick to my hope that my response was more than hypothetical, not only because he would be in a lose/lose situation, but also because his personal architectural style does not "fit" either golf course, period. No offense intended, but I've seen enough of his original and restoration work to realize that you're mixing apples and oranges.
But, I do want to clear something up.
Back when the discussion of the new first tee at NGLA hit this board, I also voiced very concerned questions, which asked if having the tee out the right did two things that I thought might be inconsistent with the hole's design intent. I believed it might make the hole more "visible", and also that it might make it a bit easier to avoid the leftside fairway bunkers.
I was assured by you and others that it wasn't the case, and left it at that.
But, you weren't the only one who voiced concern about ANY fundamental change to what is one of the world's greatest starting holes.
I would have made my comments if I had known Rees was involved or not, which I didn't know at the time. That's not bias....that's caring.
-
Tom MacWood,
Your contention is ridiculous, I never drew a comparison, you did.
Do you know what Rees's involvement is at NGLA pre and post Karl Olson ?
Do you know if NGLA has consulted with him since he became a member ?
Do you know of any specific plans to change NGLA ?
Could you inform us with respect to the above ?
-
Mike Cirba,
I never assured you that the 1st tee was okay, because I've never seen it.
If I overlooked your shared concern about the first tee, my apologies, that makes only two of us.
Where were all of these Johnny come latelies when the 1st tee changes were announced under Karl Olson's watch ?
As you know, NGLA is my favorite golf course, and I am as concerned about its architectural future, as much as anyone, but I'm not prepared to launch an attack on anyone without one IOTA of supporting facts, as has been done by others.
-
Pat
Re-read the thread.
Geoff was write about your tactics - for ever question you fail to answer you come up with five new ones of your own. It never ends and honest discusion is stiffled. You need to turn over new leaf for the sake of good golf architecture and GCA. This was at one time a site when people were able to explore the subject and not worry about modifying their ideas. But that was pre-Mucci.
-
Tom MacWood,
I remember the site, pre Mucci, when people, some of whom you probably know, would post under false names, attacking architects and individuals for their work and/or opinions.
People who didn't have the balls to identify themselves, yet rendered mean spirited diatribes.
I remember pre-Mucci when feeding frenzies occured, wilding is probably a better term, when one moron even said that Rees Jones courses don't make you think, and noone objected or found that statement ridiculous, because noone had the objectivity to defend Rees on that issue other than myself.
I remember the personal attacks without one IOTA of FACT to support them, and you were as guilty as anyone else.
Do we want to go back to Atlantic, Do we want to go back to your attacking me regarding Jews at GCGC ?
Even on this post, the implied theme is that the membership of NGLA are a bunch of idiots, and are about to wreck their golf course with Rees's assistance, yet NOT ONE FACT has been put forth to support that position. But, the seed is planted. Who drinks first from the rumored poisoned well ?
I remember the attacks on FAZIO and MERION some anonymous, some identifiable, by people who hadn't even played the golf course, post work.
If anything, I've brought a measure of accountability to this site, and inserted a measure of fairness, which didn't exist when I first tuned in.
I'm not going to apologize because I don't agree with the self anointed idols on this site.
If my facts are wrong, correct me, specifically.
If my principles or theories are wrong, correct me, specifically
But, don't whine like an old washerwoman and tell me that I've tainted the site, when you're stumped by a question or asked to provide supporting facts.
Instead of trying to constantly do battle with me, to constantly take issue with me, to constantly try to show me up, do something smart, if you can, if you don't have the facts, or don't know what you're talking about, stay out of the fray.
-
You've got a hell of memory to rememer the site pre-Mucci.
I don't recall ever saying anthing about GCGC membership or any clubs membership - I believe you are mistaken.
I'm not a fan of anonymous posts. But I would never sacrafice my opinions for the sale of 'fairness' or defending bad work - you have to call a spade a spade, that is if you can recognize a spade.
-
Tom MacWood,
I was a lurker for a long time before I was a poster, so I remember what the site was like well before I posted.
I've always commended you for posting under your name, and I continue to support your candor, and misquided posts ;D
I also recall explicitly, your uncalled for comments regarding my osmotic racism as evidence by my membership at GCGC.
I offered a long response regarding my being a member of two all Jewish clubs, serving on their boards, and the boards of several Jewish charities, and that my first wife was Jewish.
I relayed my feelings regarding your comments to others off line, and am not mistaken, but the past is the past. So let's not lecture me about offensive posts.
-
Pat
You've got me confused with someone else. To this day I have no idea what GCGC membership policies are. It's a subject I nomally stay clear of, I may have asked a hypothetical question, would you be member of a club that excludes on the basis of race or religion - but I seriously doubt that. And that ain't calling someone a racist. Based on your reaction, whoever said it, it sounds like they hit a soft spot. And frankly I don't understand your rational - how does your involvement in Jewish charities effect GCGC's membership policies - actually that would be a better served off the website. Send me an e-mail.
Your posts are not offensive.Its not a lecture, just an observation. The attitude you've brought has changed the dynamic of GCA from respectful disagreement and an atmosphere where one could (occasionaly) alter/evolve their stance without fear, to one that exhibits an in your face attitude (I'm guilty of it myself, your attitude rubbed off on me and the entire site). 'This is what you said on 8/23 at 7:37 PM' (usually taken out of context) or two years ago you called me a racist (what the hell are you talking about) or three years ago you said bad things about Atlantic/Rees Jones without ever playing the course (how many times have we heard that one) or you have a strong oppposing view therefore I'm going to call you biased. Or I don't like your view, I'm not going to articulate my opposing view, I'm going to attempt to discredit you. Often people mistakenly thought you were lawyer because of your courtroom tactics. Now everyone on the site is now a frieken expert - including myself - and you better be (or pretend to be one) or you'll be eaten a live. Exchanges with you are unprofitable because they often turn into pissing contests and nothing regarding architecture is ever discovered.
-
Hey guys, RELAX!!! This is a site to discuss architecture, not to pummel one another into submission. :P
-
Patrick,
I feel I have a better understanding why we don't agree on this National issue, or any others, so let me say this as an answer to all of your questions.
In golf architecture and most other things related to art, there are people who evaluate based on their own lofty belief in their view, in themselves. This explains how people can love most modern art. They can take a bunch of wavy lines or a pile of metal, and say, well I see something special here, and I met the artist and he shared this vision. I paid $25,000. I see deepness here. I can tell people I own this, and I spoke to the artist. It's about me!!
There are then those who take the art differently, something not personal, but instead, it's something they analyze and enjoy by looking at an array of fundmentals and principles. They appreciate it, having it come back to them somehow is not of interest.
We see this different approach to the two rankings, Golf Digest attempts to use categories for analysis, Golf Magazine proudly touts the self, the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" approach, which I must say is an ego-based way of looking at things.
I point this out because I believe you take these issues personally because your views are based on your sense that all that is required to make a point, and make it soundly, is you. You to judge, you to know. You are traditionally short on the facts you are always trying to get out of people who are expressing opinions typically created through knowledge and careful thought and a passion for enjoying well-conceived design.
Thus, it is a concern when some of us hear certain architects want to be involved in decisions or want to be consulting (for free?) at certain courses when they have shown a propensity to rely heavily on their inner voice, that voice telling them how they are better architects than anyone alive, how they are simply great and no one else is. So even if their ideas differ from what is in the ground, in photos, in the words CB Macdonald left behind, they know what they need to know because they are very high on themselves, their exaggeration of ego is immense. They know greatness when they see it. It's all about them.
This is the central difference on this thread, and with the people on this site who enjoy certain types of architecture and want it preserved or genuinely restored, versus those who like to shrug all things off as "progress" and who want to get in and leave their mark. Because the idea of progressing these courses to some new and improved place, makes it about them. They are in now control, it's their idea, their way is better. We must address our games, our courses must be defended. We, us, our, me, I, me. And anyone who disagrees with that, is taking a personal shot at me.
But Patrick, it's not about you, and the view expressed here are not meant to question you or Rees as people, but simply to ask, will The National's membership go the way of other courses and start injecting themselves into the art that is found there in Southampton. I suspect not and hope not but I do think think it is vital that at the slightest hint something is astray (and I have plenty of reason to believe anything is possible), that we raise the issue.
Geoff
-
Geoff Shackelford,
I would say that we probably have an equal love and respect for the architecture at NGLA. But, that doesn't mean that changes which don't interupt or destroy the design integrity of the golf course can't be introduced, or are automatically bad.
I would cite changes to the 2nd tee, the 8th tee, 12th tee and the new 16th tee.
Not one of those changes disrupted or harmed the golf course,
its strategy or the original design integrity.
I feel that the added length on holes # 2, and # 8 preserved or restored the original strategy in the face of modern day drives carrying the intended hazards, and find those changes acceptable.
The DANGER you allude to is always present, and one must always be concerned about them and the domino effect, and the justification for changes that may detract from, or even destroy the design integrity of a golf hole.
But, I don't know if the answer is to never touch a classic golf course, especially if a hole or feature has already been modified.
Many classic golf courses have already been altered.
Would you not favor modifications that bring the original strategies back into play ? Changes that restore the original design integrity ?
There are no blanket answers to these questions.
Each issue, each hole, each feature must be examined in its present day context, and its original context, and an intelligent decision should be made as to what to do with the hole or particular feature.
Art is static and the appreciation of art is as a spectator.
Golf courses are interactive fields of play constructed through the science of architecture blended with artistic expression.
One of the problems with golf courses is that the play and players for whom they were originally designed have gone the way of the dinosaurs, with a new breed of super athlete armed with high tech equipment which renders the original design principles outdated or obsolete.
I would certainly like to turn the clock back to 1950, but that's beyond my powers. Changes occuring subsequent to that date have been both good and bad, and I don't think one can make the case that ANY change is bad, especially when a hole or feature has already been altered, and the attempt is to try to restore the design integrity or original strategy.
Certainly every proposed change should be scrutinized and questioned, despite your mandate that I give Tom Doak an automatic free pass ;D
I don't think we're that far apart on our views on the preservation and restoration of golf courses, I just think that prudent, intelligent changes can have positive results.
I too hope reason prevails, everywhere.
-
Tom MacWood,
I recall the anonymous malicious posts that were prevalent on this site prior to my arrival.
I recall the BLIND and WILD accusations that ran rampant on this site prior to my arrival.
I merely questioned posters and requested the FACTS.
If the introduction of the FACTS confuses the issues, what can I tell you.
If someone makes a statement, they should be prepared to debate the issue and shouldn't be offended when they are asked questions or asked to produce the facts supporting their position.
I'm sorry that you find the quest for truth through the presentation of FACTS objectionable.
-
Anonymous malicious attacks have been around most likely since the site started, heck, most likely since the web started. They will continue, they should be ignored & dealt with by our esteemed editor David. I don't recall any difference since you joined the fray, Patrick.
I do recall specific threads & specific individuals who questioned you (I thought in extremely poor taste & manner, by the way) regarding membership policies at GCGC. I definitely don't recall Tom MacWood being one of those individuals (I will not disclose the specific names I remember because I don't have documentation) & to say otherwise without documenting it is a far worse slander than anything else written on this thead.
As I said to Hod on the bias thread a couple weeks ago, the continued danger of these types of threads is the way they inevitably degrade into name calling with no discussion of architecture, facts or otherwise. You cannot make sweeping generalizations like "there are architects who received most favored status" & then turn around and call everyone biased & wrong on any & all criticism of certain architects, which often takes the form of specific criticism of details, not the broad sweeping generalizations that are urged to be avoided in the interests of fairness. This is the same exact thing. Period. Double period. End of sentence.
-
I didn't know Rees Jones had designed so many classic courses! I think that Baltusrol and Quaker Ridge are his best designs by far!
Did they forget to add NGLA and Maidstone to the list?
From the Santaluz website:
Rees Jones--
Since entering the field of golf course architecture in 1964, Rees Jones has made his mark on more than 100 golf courses, many of which are widely recognized to be among the very best in the game. In 1974, he established Rees Jones, Inc., a golf course design firm with offices in his hometown of Montclair, NJ. In 1995, Golf World magazine honored Rees by selecting him as Architect of the Year. Golf Digest has consistently included Rees on its select list of the five top present-day golf course architects.
The incredible Santaluz Golf Course is sure to continue the success of other award winning golf courses designed by Rees Jones:
Quaker Ridge Golf Club - Scarsdale, NY
Baltusrol Golf Club, Lower Course - Springfield, NJ
Congressional Country Club, Blue Course - Bethesda, MD
East Lake Golf Club - Atlanta, GA
Ocean Forest Golf Club - Sea Island, GA
The Santaluz Course also reflects the design talents of Greg Muirhead, a lead designer with Rees Jones, Inc. In addition to The Santaluz Course, Muirhead has designed or remodeled courses throughout the country, including the newly remodeled Torrey Pines South Course in San Diego home of the 2002 Buick Invitational.
-
George Pazin,
I've never objected to critical objective analysis of particular features, hole designs or strategy.
Without CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, progress is impossible.
Discussions, based on facts, are healthy and informative.
-
Arachnophad,
Were you aware that Rees Jones turned down offers to be retained by Olympic and Riviera ?
Are you aware that the back portion of the first green at NGLA was added to, and built by Karl Olson ?
Can you post under your real name, or is it easier to be a coward ?
-
What the hell is going on with this thread? And Pat Mucci, what the hell are you doing? What are you talking about?
You keep spewing the same bullshit, post after post! You're apparently not reading a single thing anyone is saying here!
You just continue with this "BIAS" deal of yours!
READ MY WORDS HERE LOUD AND CLEAR!!!!
WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOUR CONCERN ABOUT BIAS!
And look over the topics on this website, look over the posts! READ them for a change! Some like the work of some architects and they explain why. Some don't like the work of other architects and they explain why!
Coore and Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse and many others are admired on this site but they don't get a free ride on this site, despite what you say! Fazio gets hammered on here but he's given credit too for the work that many admire, like Galloway!
Why have you missed that? Why have you missed the critique and the questions I've directed at Doak-and others too?
And what's this stuff you keep asking me about Atlantic City and it's restoration by Doak? How many times do I have to tell you I don't know what the course was before Doak? I certainly don't know if it was true Flynn! I told you I may have played it once in a tournament and I hardly remember it--and that was before Doak! I just don't know what it was! Why is that beyond you?
But I did see it about 15 months ago with Goalby after the Doak restoration! It looked OK to me but I can't compare it to pre-Doak (Flynn?) because I don't remember that--I just didn't know it! I guess I could always call Doug Frazier and ask him though because his family owned it, like forever!
And what's this crap about me sneaking down there to look at it--even with the smiley faces (you put in your posts?).
I did nothing like that! I went to Atlantic City to interview Linwood (nearby ACC) for GAP. On the ride home I stopped to see Hidden Creek! I haven't set foot on Atlantic City for well over a year!
And by the way, Pat--that Goldberg guy you say you had a hand in persuading to do something or another sounds to me like the worse nightmare owner and client I've almost ever heard of! Just imagine the thought of trying to turn Atlantic City C.C. (whether it was some Flynn or not at that point) into some kind of competition with Steve Wynn??!! Do you have any idea how much that course was admired by the players around here--whatever it was???
You know these people that bought ACC? That doesn't speak well of you to me when anyone tries to put it into a reasonable architectural context on here!
I'm glad Rees Jones stood up to Goldberg! I'm glad he walked or got fired or whatever the hell happened! If Doak took on the project and said it wasn't a sympathetic restoration sure as HELL DOESN'T make me admire Doak either for what he took on at ACC! He should have walked too, in my opinion, but yada, yada--these architects have to put food on the table! Bullshit, as far as I'm concerned when it comes to this discussion group and and analyzing a golf course and an asshole client like Goldberg! Doak should have said to his client--"leave the place alone'!
Although, again, I don't know what the course was when Doak got there, frankly, I don't care!! In my opinion Doak, TOO, should have walked! Good architects, with good architectural principles shouldn't work for asshole, egomaniacal clients like Goldberg (God rest his soul!).
I admire guys like Goalby who shaped for that Goldberg (Hitlton) project or whatever it was, and walked off the job he got so disguised with the work being done there by MacDonald's crew!
I admire Goalby a lot for standing up for his architectural principles instead of just a paycheck!
The two of us went down there to look at the golf course last year and had to put up with the super Jeff Kent telling Goalby he had a "RESPONSIBILITY" to finish that project because he started on the project!
I thought then and I do now that Jeff Kent (ACC's super) was a real asshole for saying something like that to Goalby! I hope he reads this and calls me to take exception to what I'm saying here! I'll tell him EXACTLY what kind of exception I'm taking and why!
I think the whole damn operation down there at ACC now is on the wrong track! They should take a good close look at themselves when it comes to architecture and who the HELL they work for, who they are and where they think they're going with that golf club!
Whatever ACC was before as a golf club, I really don't know! But what they appear to be now, a bunch of casino operators who only own a great old golf course for the sake of a half a handful of high rollers on any single day is way off base!
And you really know people like that, Pat Mucci? Maybe you do, but I sure hope you don't admire them when it comes to golf course architecture! I sure as hell don't!
-
TEPaul,
I take it that you lost at the casinos.
Was it one of Arthur Goldberg's casinos ? ;D
If you had read my earlier post, you would have seen that I said that Arthur Goldberg was a brilliant casino operator but knew very little about golf course architecture.
Arthur was a friend of mine, but he had other visions for the USE of a golf course. That doesn't make him a bad person.
As to people walking away from jobs, perhaps that's easy to say if one is financially secure. But, when an architect needs work and needs to meet a payroll and expenses, how can you possibly fault him for taking on work ??????
because it doesn't meet your critieria ?????
If everybody quit in the middle of their job because they didn't like what was going on, it would be one chaotic world.
I wonder how you would like it, lying on the operating table, having open heart or brain surgery, if the assistant surgeon and head nurse quit the job because they didn't like the method the accomplished chief surgeon was employing.
Did you know that Karl Olson modified the rear of the 1st green at NGLA ?
-
Pat:
Once again, I didn't go to any casino in Atlantic City--Goldberg's, Trump's or anyone else's. I went to visit Linwood C.C. and stopped at Hidden Creek on my way home. I haven't been to ACC since July of 2001 when I went around the course with Kye Goalby.
And I certainly never said Goldberg was a bad person--you're the only one who said I said that! All I said was he seems to me to have been a nightmare owner and client for an architect like a Doak (or maybe Rees too) who may not have agreed architecturally with what Goldberg wanted to do with Atlantic City and was asking them to do.
I think you may have been the one who said Goldberg wanted to compete with Wynn or Trump or something using ACC as the site to do it! That's a scary thought indeed! Maybe it wasn't you who said that but someone did and you claim to be the one on here who knew him or knew him best!
And, as for architects doing things they really don't want to do, and don't agree with which seems to me might be compromising their architectural principles--well, I can certainly understand their logic--and I do realize that even architects have to eat too, but is that supposed to mean then that I or anyone else should condone what they do architecturally for the reasons of JUST putting food on the table?
I don't think so Pat, but you might!
-
TEPaul,
I believe some casinos had an arrangement with Galloway, and Arthur Goldberg saw what happened when Wynn created Shadow Creek for his casinos.
I opposed Arthur Goldbergs thinking, relative to changes to the golf course. But, he paid millions for the property, and as such was free to do as he pleased with the golf course.
I'm sure many of us object when an individual buys a house, then demolishes it, to erect a palatial home that might not suit our tastes, but again, that's the owners perogative.
We live in the REAL world, and have to deal with actual, real world situations, not hypotheticals.
I'm sure you're also aware the the Marriott Corp destroyed several holes at the Seaview Pines course when they bought the property. While I found the changes distasteful, there was nothing that I could do about it. At least with Arthur, I had his ear, and so did others, and that resulted in a better golf course than had he had his way unchallenged.
If Tom Doak didn't do that project, I have no doubt in my mind that the resultant golf course would have been even more objectionable to you and me.
So, Tom Doak shouldn't be taken to task for taking the job.
Business and family obligations mandate it.
Should the Fraziers not have sold, understanding what was probably going to happen to their golf course ??
Again, I think you have to look at a lot of these issues from a real world perspective, not an idealistic one.
-
Pat:
We're having a discussion here, I guess, but we certainly aren't talking about the same thing.
This is an architectural discussion group not a discussion group about what the real world is and isn't! It's not a discussion either about a buyer's rights to do with a property whatever he wants to. Nor a discussion about whether the former owner should have sold the golf course or not!
I'm not questioning any of that! I'm not even interested in discussing that! The Fraziers had every right in the world to sell to Goldberg! I wish they hadn't--I wish they'd kept the course but they didn't and I sure don't hold that against them!
Goldberg could have put a casino on what was ACC as far as I'm concerned--he had every right to if the community would have let him!
And I believe you are right that Doak may have been the architect who could have done the best in a bad situation with a nightmare owner like Goldberg (who apparently wanted to do God knows what with that old course)!
You're saying things could have been much worse! And I agree, of course they could have been!
But we're only looking at the architecture here and frankly I think it's OK, from what I saw--and without having any real knowledge of what it was before or had been at some time previously!
But you seem to be saying what Doak and people like you did with a nightmare owner like Goldberg was the best that could have been done in a bad situation!
I don't know that and I don't think you do either. Goalby was a guy who spent a lot of time shaping some good stuff down there and it kept getting wiped out by some very untalented people who worked for MacDonald and Co, so eventually he walked in disgust!
I sure don't blame him for that, particularly if he felt it was compromising some of his architectural principles day after day! And for a guy like that super down there, Jeff Kent, to stand there and tell Goalby he was shirking his responsibility to something by walking was the height of arrogance, in my opinion!
Goalby didn't even say anything to him which in retrospect I guess I admire but at the time if Goalby told him to go screw himself or even decked him that would have been cool with me!
You may just think that anyone has to do, should do, whatever the guy paying the bills wants him to do! I don't think that way, and I don't think Goalby does either! Everyone can make their own choices, you know, particularly if they feel their principles are being compromised!
You may not call that the real world, Pat, but I do!
-
TEPaul,
You seem to totally dismiss the client employee relationship.
On more than one occassion Tom Doak was reminded of same when he wanted to do one thing and the client another.
Invariably, the client wins.
You may not be aware that Arthur wanted to build/buy/renovate courses at other locations, hence ACC could become a stepping stone to more work and new work.
-
Pat:
What's going on with you? I'm not denying the client/employee relationship at all! But you certainly seem to be and it seems to me you always have!
From the way you talk and present things it seems you believe it isn't even a "relationship", that it's really no more than client dictation completely, more akin to a "one way street"! What the client wants, the client gets!
That may be so in some architectural projects and very well may be a prime reason for some lousy architecture and many failures as well!
We try to talk generally on here about what works well, or at least I thought we did!
Have you ever noticed or have you ever known why it takes Coore and Crenshaw such a long time to sign a project contract?
It takes them quite a while so they can be as sure as possible that they DO have a good client/employee relationship before anything gets going!
They are not interested in having a client push them into doing things they don't want to do and don't believe in and they certainly don't want to push a client into something he might not believe in either!
This is elementary stuff, Pat, but it doesn't seem like you've figured it out after many years on here.
If you really think a client can hire any old architect and get him to do the exact same thing, the same kind of quality as any other architect just because he (the client) is the one with the money, you're sorely mistaken, in my book!
I thought you were well beyond that fantasy by now!
-
Can't we all just....aw, hell, never mind...
-
I Had not been on GCA in a while and saw a big thread on the National, i figured I would start at the end and lo and behold I find it has somehow degenerated into something that includes me walking off ACCC.
Jeez
Just to set the record straight.
I left the project to have a hernia repaired before leaving for Scotland to work on Doak's Archerfield project. After a couple of weeks of rest the scotland project seemed moribound and I was asked If I would return to ACC by McD's project manager and Renaissance. I was not having a lot of fun on the project and asked for more $$ to come back which I think offended the ACCC people and McD and Sons. I never heard back from them and never made it back to work on the last few holes. There were no big moralistic stances or anything else, just a plain old capitalistic one.
As for McD wiping out stuff I did, there were some bumpy things they definately did not see as golf and tried to help me "fix" by smoothing them out and removed some of the third dimesional bunker stuff, but Doaks guystried to resolve that and in general from what I saw in my only return visit there (with the pascifist TEPau!) a good bit of the shaping was still there
Ultimately I think what is there is what the client asked for and it was built the way the powers that be believed was best.
Now, could you guys could leave this ACCC stuff alone and get back to some facts on what is happening at the home of the best golf architecture I have seen, NGLA
-
Kye:
Sorry if I misrepresented anything that went on back then with you and ACC. But it seems like it was about on the same page! Sorry about the remarks too about Kent's remarks to you--that may have just been my impression and not yours--so I'll admit that here!
You're right too that we should get this thread back to NGLA! On that note why don't you and me and Brain Schneider jump in the car and head on up to NGLA? And when we get there if it looks like we've found someone who wants to wholesale change that golf course I'll help you two chase them all over the property the way you two chase Kyle Franz around Stonewll2 every day!
And if either of you are fast enough to actually catch that person (I don't run, by the way) then we can all decide exactly what to do with him but only in the name of protecting the historic architecture at NGLA, of course! Instead of beating that person up until he screams "uncle" do you think maybe running him all the way up the flagpole by his collar might work until he swears never to touch any architecture?
Unfortunately now that Karl may be gone I might have to bring my little phantom dog with severe diarrehia and turn him loose on NGLA so we can tell those folks we need to get on the course to retrieve him!
-
Well...I can't let an Atlantic City topic die (sorry, Kye!) without one quick song lyric:
"Well now everything dies baby that's a fact
But maybe everything that dies someday comes back"
From "Atlantic City" (naturally) by B. Springsteen
Heck, that lyric could be the mission statement for restorationists everywhere! ;)
KC, sorry for the tangent...
-
Dear Mr. Olson:
Having just (very) recently enjoyed visiting and playing NGLA, I can only say "WOW" to the job that you have done there!
Not only is this CB MacDonald course spectacular, but the
job of restoration that you have accomplished there is nothing less than amazing.
Best of luck to you at your job!
-
Paul Richards,
Could you list exactly what Karl restored at NGLA ?
-
Patrick:
I can add more at a later date, but I understand the most obvious part was the removal of a very significant number of trees.
Now the vistas are much more open within the course confines and the beautiful rolling terrain is very evident.
-
Paul Richards,
I guess I look at tree and underbrush clearing in a different light then I do, the term, RESTORATION.
Both NGLA and Shinnecock have cleared a good deal of underbrush and a few trees over the years.
Hopefully, more clubs will cite them as examples and rid their courses of underbrush and trees that have become invasive over the last 8o years.
-
Patrick:
Amen to that! ;)
-
Patrick:
As promised, here is the information on the work that Karl Olson did in restoring the National:
"OLSON LEAVES NATIONAL GOLF LINKS FOR TUCSON CC"
by Bradley Klein, Superintendent News, October 18, 2002
Marl E. Olson, CGCS, superintendent at National Golf Links of America in Southampton, N.Y., since 1986, has left to assume the head job at Tucson (Ariz.) Country Club. Along with his work at Tucson CC, Olson will continue a consulting relationship with Rancho Sahuarita Golf Club, a public access course being developed in Tucson by the Arizona Golf Association.
In his 16 years at NGLA, Olson became legendary at the club and throughout the industry for his persistent restoration of the Charles Blair Macdonald layout that dates to 1911 and is ranked No, 11 on the list of GolfweeKi America's Best classical courses. He oversaw the reclamation of long-lost playing areas, including fairways, bunkers and putting surfaces that had become overgrown with trees, shrubs or rough,
Olson, 52, is originally from New Mexico and holds a four-year turfgrass degree from New Mexico State University
(1973). He was superintendent at University of New Mexico Golf Course - South Course (1974-79) and then at
Hidden Valley Country Club in Sandy, Utah (1979-82). For the next four years he worked at the US. Golf Association, first
as a Green Section agronomist and then as Championship agronomist, before joining NGLA.
"Few supers have ever gotten the chance to do what I've done - to restore The National," Olson said. "We've done pieces and parts of every hole; it's a continually evolving restoration. The hardest thing is leaving the crew. They don't get the credit they deserve for making it happen."
Much of Qlson's restoration work was undertaken with the blessing of Nationals longtime green chairman, T. David Mullen. In the last few years, Olson has reported to a green committee that includes chairman Michael Conroy andi architect Rees Jones, who is a member of the club. Both of them praised Olson's work and regretted his decision to leave.
"What Karl did was remarkable," Conroy said. "The visual and agronomic benefits of what he achieved are very impressive. The club has a great history and is such an architectural gem. We might alter a few mowing patterns, but there are no plans for any major changes."
Conroy said that a small in-house search committee has been formed to find Olson's successor. The post has not been formally advertised, but the club has contacted the Long Island Golf Course Superintendents Association, Resumes from other parts of the country also are coming in. The club hopes to name a new superintendent by mid-October.
-
Paul Richards,
Interesting.
I noticed, in paragraph four, that they used the same word I used to describe his work, RECLAMATION.
That would seem to reinforce my position
It's unfortunate that they didn't list the work, specifically.
-
I also note that there are "no plans for any major changes"
thus obviating the paranoia caused by this entire thread.
-
Patrick:
So your argument is that it should be listed as a "reclamation" and not a "restoration"?
What, exactly, in your opinion, is the difference?
Thanks.
-
Paul Richards,
You asked for my interpretation of the difference and I'll try to convey that to you.
Restoration in my mind indicates some type of construction or reconstruction.
Reclamation is more along the lines of reclaiming what hasn't essentially changed in the foot pad of the golf course.
If you would like me to provide some examples, let me know.
-
Patrick:
Some examples would be great.
In my mind, the two concepts are pretty similar, so if you could compare/contrast the two, that would be great.
-
Paul Richards,
Years ago I was playing the 11th hole at NGLA with Joe McBride, a long time member, extraordinary golfer, and Board Member. As we were walking off the green I told Joe that the rear tier of the green, which was a plateau, grown as rough, was intended to be green, and should be returned to green through mowing and agronomic treatment. That regaining that portion of the green would provide additional diversity and challenge to the hole.
We reexamined the area and had some further discussions about this unusual foot pad adacent to the green, covered by rough. I suggested that it was totally unexplainable, with one possible exception, that the area had once been an integral part of the putting surface........ green.
I then asked Joe to view the green as if the fairway came from the direction of the 12th tee, and what he thought of the tier that would then exist at the rear of the green from that angle.
Joe indicated that it was sllightly higher than the other tier, but he clearly got the concept, agreed, and indicated that he would look into it.
My point is, that I think most on this site would have recognized that the rear tier, then grown as rough, was at one time a portion of the putting green, and that returning that portion as putting surface was more of a reclamation, achieved through MAINTAINANCE practices, than a restoration, achieved through RECONSTRUCTION.
I feel the same way about the front of the 10th green, which was reclaimed from rough, all the way back to the front bunker.
No construction was necessary, only maintainance practices.
With a little time and very little in the way of cost, the green was reclaimed.
Perhaps we're splitting hairs, but to me restoration implies some sort of construction whereas reclamation doesn't.
If the 12th green at GCGC was returned to its 1936 form, that would be a clear RESTORATION, due to the scope and nature of the work. If the 7th fairway at GCGC was shifted to the right, and the right side bunker filled in with sand, that would be a RECLAMATION, due to the scope and nature of the work.
I hope I've helped you understand MY view in distinguishing between the two.
-
Pat:
I thought it was the rear of the 10th green that was "reclaimed" as green space, not the front!
-
TEPaul,
For years, the U shaped penisula fronting the 10th green was maintained as rough, for about 10-20 yards.
It is beautifully bunkered.
The green was reclaimed almost up to the bunkers, providing incredible pin positions, especially when the hole was downwind. Any reclamation to the rear was minor in strategic importance, when compared to the reclamation of the front penisula.
-
Patrick:
Thanks for the explanation.
I think you are right when you say:
>Perhaps we're splitting hairs