[Jason Blasberg]

If you've not seen this week's Golfweek cover than you missed (like I did until yesterday) the cover shot of Tripp's work on our 16th green at Engineers, including his hand sketch.  

Brad has written a detailed article on restoration projects across the country at some golden oldies and feature's, among others, Tripp's work at Engineers.  

If my homer accolades weren't enough ( ) I hope that now this Board realizes that while we may all have differences of opinion concerning restoration and/or renovation projects, sometimes often very passionate differences, Tripp and his team are doing first-rate, thoughtful, work.

Well done Sirs!

[Adam Clayman]

Jason,
Homer away my boy. It's a positive and should be acknowledged.

 We're all very lucky that GW has someone like Brad Klein to expose intricacies the way he does.

I sure hope they can keep up his pay scale, now that they are competing with his Q, too.
 

[Geoffrey Childs]

Jason

My Golfweek was in today's mail.  There is a whole architecture section in the issue with a very well balanced report on the history of restorations with several examples and a bit of detail on Engineers and Trip.

I don't think the article will alter the lines in the sand drawn on this project and some others that we rehash on GCA again and again.  BUT- perhaps the larger readership of Golfweek will better understand the difference between RTJ-like remodels and attempts to keep the work of old masters alive and playable.

[Brad Klein]

Geoffrey, as you well know, the article on Engineers, West Bend CC, Chattanooga G&CC, San Francisco GC, and Cherry Hills, about courses getting a mulligan, is a not-so-subtle critique on the old RTJ "bury the past" approach that prevailed in the 1950s-1980s and that has now been widely discredited.

[T_MacWood]

Brad
What exactly did Tripp restore from the original Herbert Strong design?

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I hate to get so negative, but only one person who posts here can turn a  positive into a negative.  Tom McWood, when are you going to learn how to play the game of golf so that you can enjoy what golf courses can potentialy achieve?  Who cares about the nomenclaiture of the word restore or redesign?  If the change improves the hole while coming close to the original shot values, then that is much better than the picture of the before.  Unless you are blind, then you can clearly see how much Tripp's work brought the hole back to life!  There is a great possibility that Engineers will end up a better course than ever before.  The reason--some people who really care are involved in trying to bring Engineers to a level that few were willing to believe was possible.  They should be applauded, not knocked because it is not an exact re-rendering of the oringinal.  As Thomas Wolfe once said, " you can never go back."  The future at Engineers is very bright if people will open their eyes.  I am certain that arrangements can be made for those willing to examine who great this course is capable of being!

[John Kirk]

I was fortunate enough to play Engineers last month with Robert and Jason.  Engineers is a very good golf course, worthy of top 100 consideration.  Nice walk, great variety, tough greens, and very few balls lost or in hazards.  There's a lot to like there.

Thanks again JB and RMD...

[Brad Klein]

Tom, that's why I wrote the article. There's enough of a description with before/after images to suggest the scope and nature of Tripp Davis' work at Engineers.

[Mark_Guiniven]

Tom MacWood is one of the few posters on this board worth reading. He's great.

[T_MacWood]

Brad
With all due respect I think the article - at least the part about Engineers - is misleading. You wrote that the course suffered from tree clutter, greens shirinking, loss of bunkers and an out of character Duane hole...all true. And to his credit you wrote Davis did clear out the trees and apparently he did expand a green or two but what the article does not state is he basically rebunkered the entire course in a way that bears no resemblance to the original Herbert Strong design. He also renovated the out of character Duane hole so that it will continue be a permenant part of the routing....I believe at the expense of the course's most famous hole, the 2 or 20. You also wrote he restored the 2 or 20....it had been restored by Gil Hanse some years prior to Davis ariving. There is also no mention that Davis rebuilt half the greens on the course altering their contours.

There are a lot of people who love the new and improved Engineers - and thats fine - but to publicize it as a restoration is wrong IMO.

[Brad Klein]

Tom, thanks for the clarification on the 2 or 20 hole. Yes, I certainly knew it was Hanse who did it a few years ago. I should have spelled it out more clearly than I did when I said (in the passive tone and without attributing it to Davis) that the 2 or 20 was back.

Your major point, however, is a matter of interpretation, however, not fact, and you are perfectly free to disagree with what I wrote about it being restoration, but it's not a matter that has as simple or as clear an answer as I sense you think it does.

I think your standards for a restoration are more stringent and probably technically impossible; certainly impossible from the standpoint of maintenance and what members are willing to put up with. What would you expect; six percent slope on greens and putting surfaces cut at 1/4 of an inch to Stimp at 5.6? Maybe we should also remove trhe irrigation system altogether, and do away with forward tees or anything longer than the orignal back markers, too. I'm sure you'd do away with all modern bentgrasses; heck, even get ride of Penncross, and in the south you'd demand going back to common Bermuda.

All restoration involves interpretation and concession. The difference between restorations and modernizations, which is what happened before at Engineers and hundreds of other Golden Age courses, is that there was no effort to interpret, evoke and elicit classic principles and looks and feels. The architects just plowed it under. This time there was serious thought give to evoking and recapturing.

You are certainly free to disagree and find a restoration inadequate or not pure enough. But that's because you are viewing the process from an ahistorical, absolutist perspective.  

[T_MacWood]

Brad
You might be right, my standards for restoration may be unrealistic (I have a feeling someone will chime in and quantify exactly how unrealistic). IMO Herbert Strong’s Engineers was one of the truly special designs of its era….a landmark course. Because of that I believe its standards for restoration should be higher.

I’m not crazy about digging up these old greens and re-contouring in order to reach some arbitrary stimp reading…especially greens as unique and beguiling as the greens at Engineers. I guess I can understand redoing one or two greens if they are out of line with rest, but half the greens. Why not decrease the speed, preserve the original greens and save the money? Wild greens like those would be interesting at just about any speed.

Reasonable minds can disagree about the greens but what I really don’t understand is the new bunkering scheme, it bears no resemblance to Herbert Strong’s original golf course. You grew-up on a Strong course, do you think these bunkers are a good interpretation of his bunkering style and evoke the look and feel of his work?  I don’t understand why it is unreasonable to expect there be an effort to restore the original bunkers.

One of the themes of your series of articles is to contrast the renovation and remodeling of the past with current restoration trend. When RTJ remodeled Oakland Hills he claimed that moving the fairway bunkers out from 210 out to 250 yards was restoring the original design intent and original shot values, but we all know today what he did was redesign.

It seems to me today we are buying a similar bill of goods. As long as the architect claims he is evoking classic design principles and is doing the work with a classic look and feel we will re-classify what are renovations and remodeling projects as restorations. When it comes to designs of Engineers stature I don’t think that is a healthy trend.

[Jason Blasberg]

Tom:

I thought Brad's article was clear in several spots that Tripp re-designed greens.  In fact, the description of 16s photo says the "the redesigned 16th green . . ."

The bunker style that Tripp used was consistant with many bunkers that I'm looking at from the 1938 aerial.  

I certainly admit that there are spots, especially 10 were he could have done more expansive, almost huge waste bunkers with no grass islands.  I've not seen a current aerial so it's a little hard to tell.  Plus, the exact shape of the bunkers is the touch of the shaper, not Tripp.  All in all we restored locations, such as 10, and it's a vast improvement.  Is it exact, no, but its far better than before Tripp got there.

Also, regarding the routing, I've said it before but it's worth saying again, we've just re-seeded Strong's original 3rd tee and since we always have pins cut in all 19 greens you will have the option to play Strong's ORIGINAL routing EVERYDAY.  I know I will likely play it more than not because I so much prefer playing both 11 and 2 or 20 (which will be 10 and 14) on the back.  

Tripp also restored a good portion, although not all, of the String of Pearls on 16.  BTW, I've said it before but they were grassed over by 1938.  

Tom, I'm also wondering why you've never criticized the new back tee on 2 or 20, if you have I missed it (that I'm almost sure Gil did, but I'll correct that if I'm wrong) that streched the back markers from the 90s to about 115-120?  IMO, it's such a better hole because the longer yardage enables you to hit anything from gap wedge to punch 8 iron.  At 90 yards the shot and club selection is much more limited.  For instance, I often hit a punch cut 9 iron and at 90 yards I'd have no room to play that shot and it would be sandwedge everytime.  

Some change is good and while we'll never agree on that (I suspect) what's been done is far better than I ever expected.  

We're also not totally done and I hope we restore some more bunkers, especially the greenside bunkers on 18 and take out some that don't work, IMO, such as most of the fairway bunkers on 7 and the fronting bunker which prevents one from trying to bounce up there tee shot.

I wish I experienced more of the process but alas I was not there.  

One thing that I'm certain of is that Engineers is one of the brightest stars in a region of courses with many stars.  It is, IMO, once again top 2 or 3 in Nassau County and likely top 5 or very close thereto on all of LI as I can think of few others I'd rather play on a regular basis (but then again I'm known to be a homer but I'd argue that's because I've been very fortunate to  have outstanding homes).  

Thus, I'll say it again, Kudos to Tripp Davis for having the guts and the inclination to take some chances at Engineers because the result (while not complete) is truly outstanding!

JKB
 

[TEPaul]

"Brad
You might be right, my standards for restoration may be unrealistic (I have a feeling someone will chime in and quantify exactly how unrealistic)."

Tom MacWood:

If it's me you have a feeling might chime in to quantify exactly how unrealistic your standards for restoration may be----not this time. I think the point is only to show that your standards are unrealistic and I think that has been shown well enough at this point and understood by enough people already. There's no need to quantify further.  

[Brad Klein]

Tom MacWod, I am appalled. You insinuate that "I grew up on a Strong course." Please note. I grew up in a modest middle class family in Queens N.Y, pedaled my way over on my bicycle the 4 miles to Inwood, and caddied my way on to that Herbert Strong-designed course, only being allowed to play on Tuesday afternoons.

As for one of your substantive points (and why "pure restoration" is simply laughable and absurd), you ask:
 
"Why not decrease the speed, preserve the original greens and save the money? Wild greens like those would be interesting at just about any speed."

Nobody on Long Island who pays to play golf would pay to play such greens. Raters with purist credentials might find it fun to putt on greens with 5-6% slope and speeds of 5.6 (ooops, I forgot, we would toss the Stimpmeter. Okay, let's just say greens putting as slow as #$%&^%). Would we raise the mowing heights back up to 1/4 inch? How to deal with thatch build up? Would you stop top-dressing, too? In short, you want to turn the clock back and force people to play a game you prefer for the sake of nostalgia. Or would you opt to keep modern speds and simply watch the ball roll off the green and the superintendent find it impossible to locate a usable hole location.

All very nice if you can pay the bills. But I deal with members, superintendents, architects and builders all day long. Nobody would go for that. Maybe if they also used hickory-shafted clubs and an oblong golf ball.

The fundamentalist point of view makes for interesting threads but useless advice.

[Aaron Katz]

I'm pretty sure that, if given the choice, Bobby Jones would have preferred putting on today's greens.

[T_MacWood]

Tom MacWod, I am appalled. You insinuate that "I grew up on a Strong course." Please note. I grew up in a modest middle class family in Queens N.Y, pedaled my way over on my bicycle the 4 miles to Inwood, and caddied my way on to that Herbert Strong-designed course, only being allowed to play on Tuesday afternoons.

I'm sorry if I insulted you. I grew up in modest middle class household in Columbus, Ohio (as a small black child) and pedaled my way to Ohio State GC and Scioto GC (mostly OSU) 2 - 4 miles (my tires were poorly inflated as well)...and was only able to play at those courses on Mondays. Caddying often and playing occasionally I grew up on those courses. As a regular caddy I probably saw more of those courses than most of the members.  

Back to my question: do you think the new bunkers are a good interpretation of Strong's bunkering style and evoke the look and feel of his work?  Why it is unreasonable to expect there be an effort to restore the original bunkers...are you a "purist" if you are disapointed by a new bunkering scheme that bears little or no resemblance to the original Strong design?

Reasonable minds can disagree about the greens - Doak said on this site not too long ago that he would not touch those greens and would've recommended slowing them down before tearing them up. Obviously you don't agree.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Reasonable minds can disagree about the greens, Doak said on this site not too long ago that he would not touch those greens and would recommended slowing them down before tearing them up. Obviously you don't agree.

Tom

You are still of the mind that if you repeat over and over again the same misguided statement they will become truths. You also seem to take as 100% fact everything you come across in decades old newspaper articles.

Regardless - but folks should know that you have not seen the work Tripp did at Engineers and you are therefore unqualified to give an educated opinion of the golf course and how close or not it comes to the way Strong would want it to play.

Finally, Tom Doak is not the architect working at Engineers and his comments while certainly of value must also be taken with a grain of salt given that he is an active architect in competition with other architects for both jobs and positive aclaim for restoration work.

Has Mr Doak ALTERED classic greens on landmark golf courses himself?

Why yes indeed he has!  He has altered the 11th green at Pasatiempo.  HE has altered several greens at San Francisco Golf Club.  He has rendered HIS INTERPRETATION of what Raynor did at all 18 greens at Yeamans Hall.  

Has he done a good job with those remodels?  Those I've seen I would say an astounding yes.  

Has Tripp Davis come on here or anywhere else and said that he would not take those jobs but he would simply leave the greens alone and raise the mowers?

No he did not.

Your arguments do not hold any credibility.

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
I've said before I'm not a fan of rebuilding any interesting green for the sake of an arbitrary stimp reading...including the green at Pasateimpo. But I do see a distinction between altering one green to put it in line with the remaining 17 and whole sale reconstruction of half the greens or more.

But as I said reasonable minds can disagree about the greens the bunkering is another story. And I'm a little suprised based on your Yale experience that you don't think its important to accurately restore Stong's bunkering scheme.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoffrey
I've said before I'm not a fan of rebuilding any interesting green for the sake of an arbitrary stimp reading...including the green at Pasateimpo. But I do see a distinction between altering one green to put it in line with the remaining 17 and whole sale reconstruction of half the greens or more.

But as I said reasonable minds can disagree about the greens the bunkering is another story. And I'm a little suprised based on your Yale experience that you don't think its important to accurately restore Stong's bunkering scheme.

Tom

How would you know what was done to the greens at Engineers?  Please detail what you mean by wholesale reconstruction.  Please detail the work on the 9 or so greens at Engineers that was altered and how the final results of each both altered slopes, increased green sizes and where the recovered pin locations are?

Would you call the reconstruction of all 18 greens at Yeamans Hall to the specs that Tom Doak thinks were Raynors contouring "wholesale reconstruction"?

[Jason Blasberg]

Reasonable minds can disagree about the greens - Doak said on this site not too long ago that he would not touch those greens and would've recommended slowing them down before tearing them up. Obviously you don't agree.

I don't agree with what you attribute to TD on this one; I'm  not going to characterize what he said b/c I haven't read it (certainly not recently) but as a dues paying member I would not want to play greens rolling at a 6 or 7.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Tom MacWood

On a related note I believe that the original set of greens at Engineers were controversial even in 1919.  I believe that there were complaints regarding their playability from the very opening of the golf course.  At that time mower heights and green speeds were probably even higher and slower then you would be willing to tolerate.

Is it possible that the original set of greens at Engineers (or at least half of them) were just over the top and unworkable.

Perhaps for the first time those wonderful greens work well and as intended!

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
If you are interested there are a number of Engineers threads out there where Tripp, Robert and Jason discussed which greens were recontoured and were going to be recontoured....there was also an article in Met magazine and some info on Tripp's website...I don't feel like going back in digging it up. You can if you want or you can claim that since I don't have the information at the tip of my fingers that proves the greens were never rebuilt. I don't really care...whatever floats your boat.

I don't know anything about the greens at Yeaman's Hall. I've asked you before what happened there and I'm still waiting for the answer. As I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why it was important to restore the Macdoanld/Raynor bunkers at Yale and not important to restore the Strong bunkers at Engineers.

[Greg Tallman]

Call me simple but it sure would be nice to read an article, a  review or a thread where one person can be lauded without throwing another under the bus.

The more I read on here the more I feel as though I am being subjected to smear politics at its best/worst.

On that note I would like to commend so and so for such a great job on XYZ Club... a great departure from the boring, eye candy work offered up by so and so as unfortunately evidenced at his most recent abortion at ABC Club.

Knowledge and opinion are best mixed with tact and class.  

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoffrey
If you are interested there are a number of Engineers threads out there where Tripp, Robert and Jason discussed which greens were recontoured and were going to be recontoured....there was also an article in Met magazine and some info on Tripp's website...I don't feel like going back in digging it up. You can if you want or you can claim that since I don't have the information at the tip of my fingers that proves the greens were never rebuilt. I don't really care...whatever floats your boat.

I don't know anything about the greens at Yeaman's Hall. I've asked you before what happened there and I'm still waiting for the answer. As I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why it was important to restore the Macdoanld/Raynor bunkers at Yale and not important to restore the Strong bunkers at Engineers.

Good try Tom but you still don't and can't know what was done to the greens at Engineers nor can you know if they are improved from what was there before.  You continue to believe as 100% factual all you read from decades old and yellow newspaper and magazine articles. I find that astonishing.

The reason its OK to alter the bunkering at Engineers and Yale is because that is what the membership and powers that be have chosen to do.  I complained bitterly at Yale because
1- I was a member with a stake in the outcome
2- I honestly believed that the Yale course as built was FAR superior to the one that was butchered by Roger Rulewich.

I do not necessarily think that the original Engineers CC was better then then it is now.  That's a pretty good reason not to complain about Tripp's work.  

As to the greens at Yeamans Hall - I could do as you just did and told you that we discussed that point several times and I don't want to rehash it AGAIN for you but unlike you (when you don't have accurate answers) I will give you an answer as I understand it.

The greens at Yeamans Hall had both shrunken in size and the contours disguised by a foot or more of top dressing accumulated over the years.  There were no models of the greens.  Tom Doak and his crew BLEW THEM ALL UP and used their intuition and knowledge of Raynor as well as what was left behind to make their best INTERPRETATION of what the greens were at the time they were built.  They are a very good set of Raynor-like greens.  Are they watered down in spots with their contour compared to the originals to hold modern green speeds?  Who knows!  Are they fully faithful to what Raynor built - I would bet my last dollar that they are NOT.  They CAN"T BE because they are his interpretations and no plans are available.

What would you have had the members at Yeamans Hll play on?  The new interpretations or the old topdressed evolution of what once was?

You also did not answer my inquiry about complaints about the Engineer greens from the get go.  I'm sure you can find some articles where players were complaining that the greens (in 1919) did not work.  You did not answer if it was possible that the old greens (or some of them) never really worked well at ANY speed and the newly recontoured ones are simply BETTER then the originals.  It would not be the first time that features of a golf course needed to be altered to actually make them playable and better.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()