[TEPaul]

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?

[Tim Weiman]

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.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I've seen Pete Dye's comments, but not those of Ernie Ransome. What you summarize what Ernie had to say?

[GeoffreyC]

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.

[TEPaul]

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!

[TEPaul]

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!

[GeoffreyC]

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.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

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.

[Mike_Cirba]

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.                  

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[Tim Weiman]

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.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

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

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

[TEPaul]

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!

[Tim Weiman]

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.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

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

[ChipOat]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[SPDB]

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.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

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

[brad_miller]

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.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

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.

[Patrick Mucci]

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.

[ChipOat]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?  

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()