[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
You want me to dig through the umpteen old threads, the old Met magazine article and search Tripp's website to prove what no one is disputing...that Tripp Davis rebuilt half the greens at Engineers. Sorry Charlie.

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.

What does being a member (or not being a member) have to do with accepting the alteration of the bunkers at Engineers (and not at Yale)? Are you saying you don't have the right to have an opinion about Engineers because you aren't a member? You've never had a problem expressing your opinion on this thread and other threads. And if I recall correctly one of the more powerful influences for change at Yale was a critical article by Anthony Pioppi...I don't believe he was a member.

I'm not sure I understand your second point. Are you implying Yale was superior to Engineers? Engineers was considered every bit the golf course as Yale...it was actually more famous having hosted two major championships. According to Grantland Rice there were some who felt it was the best course in the country.

Since you appear to have become a fan of landmark courses (not named Yale) being redesigned would you favor Tripp redesigning the bunkers at Chicago or Pine Valley or NGLA...who is to say he wouldn't improve those courses too?

I agree with you the original Yale was far superior to the renovated course; I also honestly believe the Herbert Strong's Engineers was far superior to the one butchered by Frank Duane. I also believe the same course of action should have been taken at both those landmark courses, preserve as much of the original work as possible and accutately restore what you can.

Were the greens at Yeaman's Hall well preserved Raynor greens? It doesn't sound like it. Engineers greens - with a couple of exceptions - were very well preserved. With all due respect to YH I don't believe it was ever held in the same esteem as Engineers. There aren't too many courses (anywhere) that have a set of greens comparable to Engineers.

Of late you seem to be following a reaccuring patern when it comes to debating preservation vs renovation: it appears you will rationalize the reconstruction of any green on any golf course by stating well since Doak rebuilt a green at X its OK here. Unfortunate.  

Back to your question about opinions of the greens in the good old days. There were people who loved Engineers and people who hated it, not unlike what golfers said about the Old Course. At the PGA I didn't find anyone complaining about the greens. At the US Amateur there were general complaints but nothing specific about the greens (the 2 or 20 was a favorite target for complaints)...although it was acknowedged prior to the event that they could be bewildering and frustrating.

The British had the most to complain about, they sent over an impressive contingent and most of them didn't even qualify. Not practicing at Engineers before the event was the reason given for the poor showing. Chick Evans defeated Ouimet in the final...they both said the course was challenging but fair.

Wide rolling fairways, very few hazards (unlike today), bold hazards and severe greens were the formula. It was also a comparatively short course (6300 yards). Placement off the tee was key and a lack familarity could be fatal. I did read that the championship committee deliberately toned down the green speeds.

Its about time I stop trying to convince you that this was one of the truly great courses of its era and that accurately restoring it (as Doak, Hanse and Morrissett suggested) would have been the best way to go. Its water over the bridge anyway.

[corey miller]

I don't know much about the history of Engineers but am aware of the esteem in which it was held years ago.  That fact alone should lead the membership to be a little more careful than normal.

That said, It would seem we have a very knowledgeable and passionate member that is very enthused with the work.  That would be a positive.

Questions?

1.  Are any of the greens actually recountoured? Or were the slopes just lessened?  

2.  Is it a concern that a much admired restoration archie was working with the club and they then went out and hired someone else?  Was Gil to unyielding?  Did the club want to much artistic license?   It is not as if the club hired Tripp after getting rid of a Ken Dye or Roger Rulewich or Arthur Hills.

3.  What was the clubs mandate to Tripp?

I wish Tripp was still participating on this site because he truly seems like someone who wants to do the best job for the club.  
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood & Geoff Childs,

Engineers represents an ongoing dilema, the same one that existed at Hollywood.

I think Yale is a different situation.

In principle I agree with Tom MacWood.

In practice, things happen as Geoff indicates.

I guess the question or situation is as follows:

The membership doesn't like the current course, partially because it was altered by other than the original designer years ago, and they're not keen on some of those alterations.

So, they embark upon a project to realter the golf course.

Now, two of the questions for the membership are:

# 1   Do we restore to the original ?
# 2   Do we undo the changes, restore some of the
        course, and realter other parts of the golf course ?

In most cases, # 2 wins out.

Don't ask me why, but, that's what I've seen, over and over again when those are the final choices.

Tom MacWood,

Given choice # 2, or other choices, such as a complete renovation/modernization, which would you vote for ?
Which would you lobby for ?

I would think that you'd take the lesser of two evils, # 2.

Philosophically, and/or Ideologically, I know your preference,
a true restoration.  But, when the writing on the wall gains clarity and becomes a reality, the choice of # 2 is preferable to choice # 1.

It's not a perfect solution for you, but, it's a compromise solution that brings you closer to your ultimate goal rather than further away from it.

If you and I were members, I'm pretty sure we'd lobby for the purist* view, but, once it became apparent that that view was in the great minority, you have to adapt and look for the NEXT BEST SOLUTION.  A compromise.  And, that's what most projects end up being.

* My purist view incorporates the concept of elasticity or  
   lengthening of a golf course if the angles of attack are
   preserved and the design features in the DZ are returned to
   play

P.S.  Jason Blasberg,

        Get rid of the stairs between the bunker and # 16 green

[Jason Blasberg]

Questions?

1.  Are any of the greens actually recountoured? Or were the slopes just lessened?  

2.  Is it a concern that a much admired restoration archie was working with the club and they then went out and hired someone else?  Was Gil to unyielding?  Did the club want to much artistic license?   It is not as if the club hired Tripp after getting rid of a Ken Dye or Roger Rulewich or Arthur Hills.

3.  What was the clubs mandate to Tripp?

I wish Tripp was still participating on this site because he truly seems like someone who wants to do the best job for the club.  

Corey:

re: 1, several greens were I would say, majorly altered, they are Duane's 6th which Tripp entirely replaced, 8 was significantly touched, including a major change by Gil that didn't work and that Tripp fixed, 9 was reworked, and 16 Brad documented well, 17 was altered in the back right.  2 was softened a bit.  Without exception every green is superior to what was there before Tripp came and the course is better for it.

I won't address 2 or 3 as they are better left as Club matters.  I will say that I love Gil's original design work and think 2 or 20 came out great, but I'm not "concerned" that Gil didn't finish the project although in a perfect world I would have liked to see that happen.

Jason

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason Blasberg,

Get rid of the railroad tie stairs between the bunker and the 16th green !

That's embarrassing

A scar on a portrait.

[Jason Blasberg]

P.S.  Jason Blasberg,

        Get rid of the stairs between the bunker and # 16 green

Pat:

That's a really steep slope, and the stairs are low profile as seen here.  

When it's wet out you could literally fall down that slope so I have to disagree with you on this one.

Jason

[Jason Blasberg]

here's a good look at 9 green looking back toward the tee:

One of the original themes that Tripp utilized was one or more bowl sections within greens:



From further back:



The falses back that is menacing to a back right pin:



From the front:

[Brad Klein]

Corey, I think you might be missing a major point, which is that compared to previous generations at Engineers, this membership, their super and their g.m. are being more careful and more protective.

The process actually started in 1994 when a member, I think he was the green chairman, Marty Kantor, brought Gil in and also invited myself and Ron Whitten to look at Engineers and ask us all what we thought of their design heritage and potential. The club then hired Gil, who did an early restoration plan. Unfortunaterly, Kantor died suddenly, and for all sorts of reasons momentum stalled. Gil did some work on "2 or 20" but the reast of the plan was halted. I don't know know the exact reasons for Tripp Davis being brought in; he was a regualr player at the Anderson Memorial each year at Winged Foot and during his visits got to know Engineers and was invited to do a plan. I didn't have time to go into all of this in the Golfweek article and it really doesn't much matter. The club was going through a total transformation, and that included architectural heritage. From where they were with the Frank Duane work and wild over planting they are now much improved. Thus "the Mulligan."

That to me is the basic plot line, and while details and elements of the restoration could be disputed and critiqued, it was certainly far more historically appropriate than the stuff Yale went through before that work was halted. The difference is that Engineer's own people took a serious look at their design heritage and hired someone deciated to it and Yale did not --until very recently, and only after much additional damage was wrought that compounded their problems from the 1950s and 1960s.

[Jason Blasberg]

Tripp's green that entirely replaced Duane's 6th from the 60s that was entirely one dimensional:

See how it flows naturally with the land:



One of Tripp's original greenside bunkers on 6, very Strong like from what I can tell from the old aerials:



It's no longer one dimensional:

[Jason Blasberg]

here's a good look at 9 green looking back toward the tee:

One of the original themes that Tripp utilized was one or more bowl sections within greens:



From further back:



The falses back that is menacing to a back right pin:



From the front:

Here's my favorite bowl within a green on the 10th, Strong's 9th, this one is all Strong and Tripps work on 9 emulates it extremely well:

[Jason Blasberg]

Here's a great example of the front to back slope of 17 green:

 

[T_MacWood]

Brad
Do you think the new bunkers are a good interpretation of Strong's bunkering style and evoke the look and feel of his work?  I don't.

Is it unreasonable to expect there be an effort to restore the original bunkers? I think its reasonable unless its simply not possible or impractical for some reason.

Not only am I disapointed that the original bunkers were not restored, I'm even more dispointed they put in a new bunkering scheme that bears little or no resemblance to the original. At least Rulewich was trying to restore the original bunkers...poor execution is what failed him.

The lesson of this case (and others, especially Ross courses): if you can competently build bunkers in a historic or classic vein - even if they do not represent what was there originally - you will be praised for your efforts. A bad precident IMO.

[TEPaul]

"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."

Tom MacWood:

Thank GOD ALMIGHTY you actually have a sense of humor and judging from the foregoing a damn good one. What you should do is endeavor to show it more often.  

LOL  

[Jason Blasberg]

TomMW

what projects get your approval?                  

[Jason Blasberg]

TomMW:

Keep finding fault with what we've done at Engineers and I'll keep suffering through greens like this:

[T_MacWood]

Off the top of my head: Chicago, NGLA, Fenway, Fishers Island, Lawsonia, Camargo.

[Jason Blasberg]

Off the top of my head: Chicago, NGLA, Fenway, Fishers Island, Lawsonia, Camargo.

and how many of those have you played before and after?

[Jason Blasberg]

Do you approve of Fenway b/c Gil is doing it or because you've seen it?  

Engineers has been way more aggressive with tree removal from what I saw at Fenway 2 seasons ago, they were making nice progress but had a WAYS to go.

[T_MacWood]

Jason
I've studied and researched all of them and I've played or walked (I walked Fishers with Donnie Beck) all but Lawsonia.

You should probably keep your thoughts to yourself on Fenway since you aren't dues paying member.

We know what you think about Tripp Davis, what is your opinion of Herbert Strong?

[Jason Blasberg]

Jason
 

You should probably keep your thoughts to yourself on Fenway since you aren't dues paying member.

Does that mean you're going to follow your own advice and keep your thoughts about Engineers to yourself . . .

 

[Jason Blasberg]

We know what you think about Tripp Davis, what is your opinion of Herbert Strong?

I won't comment about Strong as anything I could say would be inferior to your vast knowledge of all things long dead so I'll let you tell me what to think about Strong.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

P.S.  Jason Blasberg,

        Get rid of the stairs between the bunker and # 16 green

Pat:

That's a really steep slope, and the stairs are low profile as seen here.  

When it's wet out you could literally fall down that slope so I have to disagree with you on this one.

Jason,

That slope isn't that steep, if it was, the railroad tie steps wouldn't be so far apart.

For close to 90 years NO STEPS existed, and golfers were able to negotiate the walk from the bunker to the green without any steps, with little or no difficulty.  Perhaps because generations of golfers were taught to enter and exit bunkers from the rear, and not from the side or front.

If you'll look at the before photo of the 16th green in Golfweek you'll see how the architect built a ramp like feature on the original hole which allowed for egress from the bunker to the green where the current steps exist.

Engineers' History and tradition demands their removal.

If a ball comes to rest against a railroad tie, what's the current ruling ?  Are they an integral part of the golf course ?

They have to go.
When does security leave the property ?[/color]

[Jason Blasberg]

Pat it's less steep for you with that long stride, for us average height guys it's steep.  Seriously, the walk up to 16 green if you're below it and the walk from 16 green to 17 tee is steep and gets me winded everytime and I'm in good shape!

I don't think we have security but you didn't hear that from me

[TEPaul]

Geoffrey Childs:

Your post #25 to Tom MacWood came as close to summing up just perfectly the differences of opinions on this over-all subject as any post to date has.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Your constant pontificating about what you've studied and researched is getting positively sickening.

Your specifically critical opinions on Aronomink's restoration is the most egregious example to date---a course you have been nowhere near.

Unfortunately, pal, it just doesn't work that way in this business, and you are definitely not an exception to what it take to becoming really familiar with a golf course, its history and potential restoration.

You should learn to expend your energies regarding golf courses that are significant that really are redesiging rather than those that are doing and have done acceptable restorations.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()