[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think Tom MacWood's heart is in the right place.

It's his brain that's not dealing with the practical realities.

[Geoffrey Childs]

At least Rulewich was trying to restore the original bunkers...poor execution is what failed him.

Now that is a funny statement LOL

Not even close.

#1 left front - not a shadow of its former self #1 right side  slopes spoftened and big mound built to allow mowers through

#2 slope butchered and a berm built to direct balls away from the bunkers which were resized and split up

#4 Road hole bunker is a joke Road sumulation by bunkers with shallow slopes and split up.

#5 - 5 feet shallower then originals with slopes softened

#6 - now a peanut shaped computer drawn ugly shallow shadow of its former self and well away from the green from the original - SO - he built a shallow round cat litter box greenside that was never there

#7 - peanut shaped bunker away from the green where the original was as large as the green itself coming up to the green with a large lip

NEED I GO ON? Poor execution - Yes

Poor intent - Yes as well

The bunkers at Engineers from what I see and from all the old photos play as difficult as hazards as they did in the past.  Not so by a long shot at Yale.  Apples and Oranges my friend.

[T_MacWood]

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.  
 

Those are all good questions. Its my understanding the slopes were lestened. I don't know the answers to your other questions.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I think Tom MacWood's heart is in the right place.
It's his brain that's not dealing with the practical realities."

Patrick:

I don't agree with much you say on here but I do agree with that. Unfortunately, in the nitty-gritty world of restoration projects heart alone doesn't really cut it. One definitely needs a brain to deal with practical realities as well.

Is it any wonder to you that Tom MacWood has never really put himself on the line in a single restoration project before the fact? Either he just doesn't understand reality or he has some morbid fear of failure or fear of putting his credibilty on the line.

Taking some hard knocks isn't fun but I guess you can't find success if you don't put yourself in that position sometimes.

Tomorrow at 8am I'm meeting Gil at GMGC to try to fix the biggest mistake I've made to date. But I'm encouraged and hopeful we can do it right this time.

[T_MacWood]

TEPaul,

I think Tom MacWood's heart is in the right place.

It's his brain that's not dealing with the practical realities.

Pat
What was impractical about restoring Strong's original bunkering at Engineers?

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.

TE
Please translate.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Please translate"

Don't try to play some adolescent game with me with a remark like that. There's nothing remotely hard to understand in what I said to you that you quoted in that last post. You may think you can know and understand architecture by keeping your interest in it buried in books and magazines, but you can't---no one can. You need to get out there like the rest of us do. And don't try to tell any of us you do because you don't and you haven't.

Never having laid eyes on Aronomink just doesn't cut it and either does a couple of hours at GCGC and the other courses you claim to know but of course you just don't.

I think I could learn to discuss restoration projects with you with a lot less vitriol than I have if you'd ever been involved in one for the duration, but you just haven't, you seem to refuse to be and worst of all you continue to not realize the importance of it.

[Jim Nugent]

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.

Geoffrey's point at Yeaman's is that they didn't know what the original greens were, i.e. #1 was not really an option.  How often is that true?

[T_MacWood]

The reality of restoration today: if the restoration architect produces a classic style or look that is generally harmonious throughout (even it bears no resemblance to the original design) it will be deemed a successful restoration.

People who question the current state of affairs are branded 'purists' and don't deal in reality.

[Tim Copeland]

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt

[Chris Munoz]

Has anyone seen Tripp's work at The Meadow Brook Club.  He is currently renovating the bunkers there; this is the 2nd year he is working there.  If anyone has any photos, that would be great to see the work.

[wsmorrison]

In this case, I think a picture or two is worth more than 1000 words.  Can somebody please post photographs (ground and aerial if possible) of Strong's version of Engineer's and the current iteration?  The back and forth without support isn't all that helpful to so many of us that wouldn't know a Strong bunker from a Davis.  I'd like to see what was so special about Strong's bunker style that Tom MacWood feels has been abandoned.  Besides aesthetics, were there changes made to bunker placement from the original design?

[Jason Blasberg]

Wayne:

Look at the photos from Ran's review, Strong's bunkers have little uniqueness that would noticeable distinguish them from someone else.  Strong did have a lot of love grass inside the bunkers.  He also had more wash out/waste bunker areas.

I've seen an old aerial photo of the left greenside bunker on 1, the one between 1 green and 18 tee and Tripp restored it to very similar form.

[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,

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]

Pat:

Look at Ran's review and the photo of 16, do you prefer those stairs?  

Yet another example where Tripp redesigned Engineers, he even took artistic license in where to put the stairs . . .  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

Yes, I do.

I prefer their location and their structure.

[Jason Blasberg]

Jason,

Yes, I do.

I prefer their location and their structure.

So you prefer the more visable and obstrusive stairs?  That makes no sense to me and I think you critized the current stairs without realizing the old were there.  This is more than evident by your saying the hill was not too step.

I think there's a reason there have been stairs there for 80 years and I prefer Tripps as they are muchy more understated and much less likely to be in play compared to the old stairs.

 

[Jason Blasberg]

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.

. . .
They have to go.

Pat you got caught with your pants down on this one, just admit it and we'll move on.  BTW, this is a perfect example of people having bad or incomplete information and drawing uwarranted conclusions about aspects of a restoration project.  

This is a great example of "what date do you restore it to?"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

Yes, I do.

I prefer their location and their structure.

So you prefer the more visable and obstrusive stairs?  

You're totally ignoring why they're there in the first place.

It's for FUNCTION.

That makes no sense to me and I think you critized the current stairs without realizing the old were there.  This is more than evident by your saying the hill was not too step.

It's not steep where the CURRENT steps are.

It is steep where the old steps are.

Please tell me you understand the distinction.

I think there's a reason there have been stairs there for 80 years and I prefer Tripps as they are muchy more understated and much less likely to be in play compared to the old stairs.

They were there for 80 years because they were needed in THAT location.

The rampway provided adequate egress from the front left location, no such egress was provided to the steeper right side.

Tripp's stairs are NOT needed in THAT location, since the climb is easy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

. . .
They have to go.

Pat you got caught with your pants down on this one, just admit it and we'll move on.  

Not at all, I stand by my assessment.

BTW, this is a perfect example of people having bad or incomplete information and drawing uwarranted conclusions about aspects of a restoration project.  

No, this is an example of members trying to justify an error, or unnecessary feature.

This is a great example of "what date do you restore it to?"

Don't forget about function.

[David Stamm]

Jason, I just wanted to thank you for all the info about your club. I met a gentleman on the internet who belongs to Canterbury (he also belongs to Brookside, which is also featured in the magazine) and he has really been gracious in educating me about Strong and how underappreciated he is as a designer. I also didn't know what an accomplished player he was until I read The Greatest Game Ever Played and saw his name in the mix there at Brookline. I really appreciate and admire your enthusiasm for your club and you should be proud, it looks like a fantastic place.

[Jason Blasberg]

Pat:

Have you played the 16th hole recently . . . ever?

Your first assertion about the stairs was a matter of aesthetic preference but you're trying to get out of the painted corner just makes you look foolish.  

So your telling all of us that when you said:

"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."

You meant, there were no steps in the current location where Tripp has put them, but where Strong put them to the right and more steep location is fine?

Even the Roberts Court wouldn't buy that argument . . .

Pat, I admire your enthuisasm for architecture but please don't force me to completely lose respect for you with this one . . . it's OK to say you DON'T LIKE the stairs

just DON'T SAY THE STAIRS WEREN'T THERE FOR 90 YEARS as justification for your aesthetic preference.  

For crying out loud that's exactly what Tom MW has been doing with Engineers for the last 5 years!!!

Confess now to your aesthetic preference or forever lose all credibilty in my book . . . you can't win this motion counselor!

[Jason Blasberg]

The rampway provided adequate egress from the front left location, no such egress was provided to the steeper right side.

Tripp's stairs are NOT needed in THAT location, since the climb is easy.[/b]

Pat:

Please look at the historical evidence if you're going to opine on it:


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Engineers161.jpg

It's clear that the steeper portion of the greensite and bank is the left side, just follow the property slope . . .

It's also perfectly clear that there was no grass ramp by Strong so you're referencing the grass ramp as the restoration point is completely off and your likely seeking to restore a butcher job feature from Duane in the 60s.

Now imagine your misplaced historical argument and multiply it by 100 and you've just formed the basis for Tom MW's misunderstanding of Engineers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

Have you played the 16th hole recently . . . ever?

Your first assertion about the stairs was a matter of aesthetic preference but you're trying to get out of the painted corner just makes you look foolish.  

So your telling all of us that when you said:

"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."

You meant, there were no steps in the current location where Tripp has put them, but where Strong put them to the right and more steep location is fine?

Even the Roberts Court wouldn't buy that argument . . .

Pat, I admire your enthuisasm for architecture but please don't force me to completely lose respect for you with this one . . . it's OK to say you DON'T LIKE the stairs

just DON'T SAY THE STAIRS WEREN'T THERE FOR 90 YEARS as justification for your aesthetic preference.

But, they weren't, an incline, probably constructed, was located in that area, not stairs. [/color]

For crying out loud that's exactly what Tom MW has been doing with Engineers for the last 5 years!!!

Confess now to your aesthetic preference or forever lose all credibilty in my book . . . you can't win this motion counselor!

That's merely your opinion.

It's clear that the steps are a recent addition, and, out of place, architecturally.

They are obviously "modern" in appearance and function.

Previously an earthen ramp like feature allowed the golfer to enter and exit at that location.   The stairs look like a typical modern intrusion.

You never answered my question.

Are the railroad ties considered an integral part of the golf course, or is relief permitted ?[/color]

[T_MacWood]

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.  

Fair enough. Jason has never hidden the fact he has little interest in history...preferring to deal in the here and now.

How about anyone else? There are many others on this thread with very strong opinions about restoration who are also apparetnly interested in golf architecture and its history.

Why is Herbert Strong important in your opinion? What is it about his work that appeals to you and why do you think it is important to restore his work? And if you don't agree that he is important and worthy of restoration...why not?

[Jason Blasberg]

It's not steep where the CURRENT steps are.

It is steep where the old steps are.

. . .

Please tell me you understand the distinction.

....

Tripp's stairs are NOT needed in THAT location, since the climb is easy.

Pat:

I understand the distinction between steep areas requiring stairs and less steep areas not requiring stairs, perhaps.  I also understand why Strong's stairs were there, there was no other exit route as, alas, there was not earth ramp.

You also state:

"It's clear that the steps are a recent addition, and, out of place, architecturally.

They are obviously "modern" in appearance and function.

Previously an earthen ramp like feature allowed the golfer to enter and exit at that location.  The stairs look like a typical modern intrusion."

The earth ramp is a modern feature, as you will see clearly from Ran's (Tom MW's) old photo it was not there and thus the stairs were the only way up.  

Pat, either you don't get this one or you're intentionally playing coy.  The earth ramp is a modern feature (in that it was clearly not an original feature) and Tripp's stairs are a modern feature.  WHY WON'T YOU ADMIT THAT YOU ARE SIMPLY EXPRESSING A PREFERENCE AMONG MODERN FEATURES?  The problem here is that you arrogantly (whether or not that was your intention) condemned the stairs as a Modern, unnecessary, scar on the canvass.  Your stated justification is that there weren't stairs for 90 years so there shouldn't be stairs today.

When your initial assumption was proven false, rather than admit the more accurate basis for your conclusion (that you are stating an aesthetic preference among two non-original features) you are revising history asserting that the earth ramp is the proper feature and that Tripp's stairs, "look like a typical modern intrusion."

I know you are too smart to think that such fallacious reasoning will get you out of this one.  

If you are seriously going to call Tripp's stairs a "typical modern intrusion" and not recognize the earth ramp as the same, than you are throwing historical restorationists like Mr. MacWood under the bus for your own specious attempt to cloak taste as a norm.

Last:

You asked, "are the railroad ties considered an integral part of the golf course, or is relief permitted ?" What were Strong's original stairs, or any stairs?  I've always understood them to be an integral part and there is no local rule stating otherwise.  

[Jason Blasberg]

TomMW:

I don't think your statement is accurate regarding my disregard for history . . . I have a Strong sense of history and a respect for it . . . I just respect my own view more . . . (yes, I am an arrogant self serving pr@ck at times, but at least I'm forthright about it).  


JKB

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()