Is the Doctor always right ? Second Opinions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba and Geoff Shacleford's posts relative to the addition of fairway bunkers along the creek on the 5th hole at Merion created what I believe is a dilema.

On another post I questioned, who amongst you would go toe to toe with Tom Doak on another issue, meaning that architects carry added clout, weight, and credibility to their words on golf course architecture.

In medicine, it is accepted, almost mandated protocol, to seek second opinions.  And....
when those opinions conflict, to seek a third opinion.  Usually, these second and third opinions, and the first opinion, are from specialists in their field.

So... let's look at a golf course restoration.  It would appear that the accepted protocol is to retain but one architect, one specialist to perform the transition.  WHY ?

In medicine, doesn't the patient have the ultimate responsibility for their health, their well being.

Why is it different for a golf course ?
Doesn't the membership have the ultimate responsibility for the well being of the golf course ?

So if the membership disagrees with the opinion of the architect, or has reservations regarding a change, don't they have the responsibility, the obligation, to seek out another professional opinion from a specialist ?

Now I recognize the difference between an individual patient, and a collective membership, so let's distill it down to a small committee, or down to the project chairman.

If a substantive idea or concept is proposed by the architect, and it is questioned, (here we go back to the weight factor) who is to say it's correct ?  Isn't there a need for a second opinion ?  

And, if a substantive idea or concept is proposed by a member or project chairman, and it's rejected by the architect (weight) who is to say the idea or concept is invalid ?  Don't we need a second opinion from a professional.

Many years ago, second opinions were frowned upon, doctors avoided contradicting one another.  Malpractice suits were one of the factors that changed all that.  
Bruising EGOS is no longer a concern, getting the diagnosis correct IS THE FOCUS.  And now, second and third opinions are Standard Operating Procedure.

If Mike Cirba is correct about the bunkers on # 5, doesn't Merion have a clear obligation to seek out second and third opinions.

Why can't architecture be a collaborative effort amongst architects, similar to medicine, where the ultimate goal is the preservation or retention of the patients well being.

Is EGO involved in the reading an X-RAY ?

[Craig_Rokke]

Good post. I don't think any architect would
be willing to give his all to a design, or restoration, and affix his signature to
the work, if he knew that other architects
could or would be consulted. Good or bad, it's
doubtful that Fazio (or anyone else)would have even taken the job if he new Merion was apt to consult with others. What's worse?

The field is a highly personal, artistic one,
and although the "2nd opinion" question is
a good one, I think that involuntary collaborations would be detrimental to the business.

If you can't arrive at some common ground with your architect, you should find someone else.
You probably didn't do enough background checking during the selection process.

Heck, maybe the committees love that bunkering
scheme along the creek!

[Craig_Rokke]

Besides, a patient isn't under a contractual agreement with his physician, but clubs
usually (always?) are under a contractual obligation to the architect they've chosen.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Patrick,

Not to drift from your post, which poses an interesting question, and a tough one for the golf business, but maybe the example at Merion will help answer your question.

Merion is using their second opinion now. They had Gil Hanse and Bill Kittleman quietly going about the business of preserving the bunkers and course while trying to make it more maintainable. For reasons that have been discussed here (and m any others that have not come up yet but which would probably sadden most fans of Merion), they chose to get another opinion because they didn't like opinion #1. In essence, the second opinion was solicited by the club committee, headed by a Mr. Bill Greenwood. One of their follow up opinions has two awful renovations to their credit (Inverness, Oak Hill with more to be added to the resume), and the other is a contractor whose only purpose is to make as much money as soon as possible before going to the next project as soon as they can. Architects exist so that people won't take the advice of contractors, but the Merion folks apparently haven't learned that lesson. There was a fourth opinion from the USGA green section as well. Wait, and then there was...well the list is long. They also sought Ben Crenshaw's advice, and ignored his.

Now they've decided to go to a 1930 aerial as some holier than thou artifact that must be their guiding light. Yes, it's an interesting set of photos, but a wise architect would have to question changing a course back to that photo when the course in question has evolved in a way that the golfing world says is pretty darn incredible. Untouchable to most.

So in this case, the patient here is the one who has killed himself by not researching the reputation or the motives of their second and third opinion. The patient's ego also got in the way and ignored advice from people who have proven themselves to have integrity and who have established themselves as authorities on the subject of classic courses.

[John_McMillan]

I would disagree with the comparison a little bit based on the differing emphases between "art" and "science" in the medical and golf course architecture professions.  

Very few evaluate the esthetics of a medical decision ("the prescription cured my pneumonia, but I don't care for the tint it turned my mucus"), while a large part of golf course architecture involves how a course looks and plays.  When it comes to whether the strategy of a whole is interesting, or whether a whole looks pretty, I feel qualified to chip in my two cents to a debate, even one involving professionals in a field.  However, for the scientific part of GCA - whether a project can be built for $X, or completed in Y weeks, or cost $Z per year to maintain, I have no special insights, and will defer to those who do.

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

Interesting thread!

A couple of thoughts. Architects provide not only technical advice but practice artistic sensibilities they believe are inherent to the playing of golf. These artistic sensibilities will vary from one person to another and I can understand how one architect would not want his thoughts lumped with someone else.

Once the process becomes a collaborative one you inevitably must cherry pick from a range of people in order to arrive at some sort of consensus. The problem comes in the person / group doing the collection of information and ultimately the tying together of the different ideas.

I have no idea on what Merion is attempting to do. Sometimes people prefer a range of opinions to AVOID deciding anything. Worse yet as said in the previous paragraph -- this hodge-podge type thinking can mean the creation of a bunch of different ideas that CANNOT reasonably be meshed together.

The old adage that too many cooks spoils the broth is a true one. Merion in its formation was smart to send a member (Hugh Wilson) to study the great designs of the UK and come back to the club for actual implementation of  two courses. What I see Merion doing from a distance is the inability to trust someone.

It amuses me to no end that people who are experts in one category (i.e. medicine, law engineering, etc.) would laugh at you if a layman attempted to tell them what should be done in their respective field. No sooner said -- these same people think in their minds that because they are successful in one field that automatically qualifies them to be experts in course design, strategy and the history of their original creators.

Please do not think that NO ONE can amend what an architect has suggested. There are people who have studied the great designs and who have read as much as possible. The clubs need to move away from the democratization of all type decisions. The great clubs had one person at the top who gave the final OK and this one person was the one who ultimately worked with the arhitect. Golf by committee does not work because it simply must make endless compromises in order to get anything done. The final result -- inconsistent results that have varying applications throughout the course.

Merion from my perspective is caught in the paradox of "paralysis by analysis."

[jglenn]

Very interesting and thoughtful responses, everyone.  Geoff and Matt in particular.

[Gib_Papazian]

Geoff,

The Merion issue is obviously a complex one and I wonder if their idea of using 1930 aerials is not such a bad idea.

Karl Olson approached the NGLA restoration by trying to establish a point where he felt the course was presented at its high water mark and worked from there.

That does not mean that that photos at either NGLA or Merion represent an absolute that cannot be deviated from, but at least establishes an anchor to counter the possibility of straying too far from Hugh Wilson.

It works at NGLA because Karl uses good sense and does not presume that absolutely everything must be restored so exactly to the exclusion of common sense.

I would say that if I was the Green Chairman, using 1930 photos as a starting point and then carefully considering what modifications over the years enhanced the course is better than giving a monkee a gun and hoping he doesn't shoot anybody.

Patrick,
I know exactly what you have in mind and where you are going with this, but sometimes a 2nd opinion is more damaging than the first.

If you have back problems, the herbalist wants to give you herbs, the chiropracter wants to pop your back, the Ortho guy wants to start out with thereapy and epidurals and the surgeon just wants to cut you, fuse a disk or two and send you on your way.

2nd opinions depend on who you ask.

Architects are the same way. Fazio is the surgeon, he thinks he can improve the golf course and doesn't care what is there now. He sees what he thinks is a prblem and will pull ou the knife and fix it like he thinks it ought to look - regardless of what is there now. Doak is the Ortho and is probably treading lightly to avoid causing the patient (membership) more pain than they can take at this point.

It is up to the club to select which direction they want to go and then let the architect do his work.

Make sense?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

I think that most green or project chairman realize that the General Contractor is there to make a profit, and I don't fault him for that.  That is why most clubs bid the work, understanding that quality in material and labor is a must.

In theory and application I don't have a problem with picking a particular year as a target point for restoration, granting Gib his possible modifications.  In fact, I support picking the year 1936 as a benchmark at GCGC.  My reasoning is that there is an abundance of photographic evidence from this year, versus any other time period, and I happen to like the course, with Gib's limited modifications in that state.

Geoff, I'm not so sure that Merion didn't decide to go in another direction, prior to consulting with another professional, which is different from my theory.

John McMillan,

The next time you or a family member needs a plastic surgeon, tell him aesthetics don't mean anything to you.  

Matt Ward, et. al.,

You may have missed a key word in my original post, the word was SUBSTANTIVE.  
My post addressed substantive differences, not nitpicking or minor issues.  I would define the placing of bunkers along the creek at # 5 at Merion, as a substantive change.  (I still can't believe it)

Craig Rokke,

If you're saying that you have to give the architect complete artistic and architectual control, I disagree with you.  
Long after architects leave the property, the members have to live with the changes, and the Superintendent has to maintain the altered course.  I would rather question substantive issues or radical changes before the job is done, than live trying to explain or correct the problem for the rest of my membership years.

I don't believe that when an artist speaks, that he speaks in absolutes, and that it is the responsibility of the membership, through the project chairman, to question proposed changes, or radical departartures from the original mission statement.

When a highly qualified doctor provides a diagnosis and treatment protocol, I ask questions, sometimes in a challenging way.
This is my life, my health, and I have the SOLE responsibility to myself and my family to:  TRY TO DO THE BEST I CAN TO ASSURE THAT I AM HEADED DOWN THE PROPER MEDICAL PATH,  And, the same principles apply to a project chairman for a renovation or restoration project.

I have a difficult time accepting things on blind faith, but maybe that's jsut me.

Gib,

You must be going to the same tutor as Jeremy, since your analogy is flawed  
Your analogy, provided examples of individuals from four (4) differing disciplines.  My analogy confined the consultation to the same sub-specialty, although I know what you are trying to say.

If Merion has stated, for the record, that they want to return the course to 1930, and their architect of choice radically modifies, and deviates from the 1930 architecture, shouldn't they consult restoration experts/architects for a second opinion on a change that will last for the foreseeable (sp?) future ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sorry, I forgot to add something.

Isn't Pine Valley a perfect example of a collaborative effort ?

[Craig_Rokke]

Patrick-

I think you misunderstood my comment. I don't think you can give an architect complete control. The club and the architect must aim
for common ground on design issues. The club should examine every last detail of a design from every angle imaginable, holding the design up to the long-range goals of the club.

When you mentioned the possible "need for a second opinion" I took that as confering with other architects while a project is ongoing.
I don't think think that is desirable.

I'd still maintain that if you do your homework thoroughly and pick a Dr.(or an architect) with a great reputation, the need
for second opinions is minimized.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Patrick,

Merion hired the contractor before they decided to change architects. It was a very peculiar process they went through to reach the point they are at, and as Matt pointed out so eloquently, this is largely a problem of too many opinions being sought by too many who are seeking opinions for the wrong reasons. They will have to play their course for the next twenty years and ask themselves if they feel good about what they've done. If they enjoy it, more power to them. Maybe it'll even launch Buddy Marucci's design career.

Gib,
As for picking a year based on an aerial, I think that is extremely dangerous and causing way too many questions with restoration projects. If you have ground shots from the same year as an aerial, ala Cypress Point or a Riviera, it's easier to pinpoint a time when the course looked and functioned best. But every course has certain evolved features that are worth keeping, some more than others (imagine Olympic-Lake going to 1930!). Aerials don't tell the entire story with bunkers in particular. They are great for studying old green boundaries, but deceptive when it comes to bunker character and depth, and in some cases what is a bunker and what is a patch of dirt! I love the early photos of Riviera, but I can't envision taking the bunkers back to some of the looks, heights and sizes they once had. They have a lot of character now in their evolved form. It's a tough question, and I guess when a course has held up well like a Riviera or Merion, I'd error on the side of caution and focus on subtle things like fairway contours, trees, green sizes and approaches. But even those matters have to be handled with care. I don't sense Merion or Riviera is being handled with care, they are being handled like tournament venues. That is their choice, but I have a problem with them masquerading such projects as noble restorations. They aren't, so don't insult us by saying they are.

For Merion, I know why 1930 strikes them as such a special time, and architecturally I think that is a mistake. Personally, I believe it's their way to justify redoing the bunkers in such a dramatic fashion and probably has little to do with when Merion was at its best, worst, neatest, coolest, whatever they'll call it.

Personally, I just didn't see what was wrong with Merion that required such SWIFT action. Did the USGA ask that this work get done well before the amateur as the club insists? I doubt it, Tim Moraghan's job is not to focus on US Am sites. Merion is ranked in the top 10 no matter what list you look at. In fact, I have never heard anyone go there and not love the "evolved" course.
Geoff

[T_MacWood]

Isn't the time to get opinions, before the procedure takes place? I don't like the medical analogy, a doctor treats a specific condition - what condition does Merion have?

What is the goal of the club? Renovation? Restoration? Strengthening? Improved maintenance? Nostaglia? Are there political consideration? Are you trying to please or impress the USGA? Or combination of many? The choice of an architect would differ depending on the specified goal or goals. I don't think the club has detailed their exact reasons for undertaking this work.

I doubt seriously the choice of 1930 has anything to do with architecture and is more of a historical/nostalgic significance, being the date of Bob Jones' Grand Slam. The architectural highwater mark would be only a few short years ago, after decades of the Valentines working their magic. From the course's inception until modern time the club has had a father and son overseeing their course - an extraordinary situation that may explain why the course has been adored by so many for so long. Who needs photographic evidence when you've got the evidence in the flesh?

[Gib_Papazian]

Patrick/Geoff,
Yes they are from different disciplines, but all are still in the business of fixing my bad back. Again, it depends on how invasive you want to get.

Oh gawd, here I go with one of my analogies, but this might be more relevant than most:

Back when I was in the movie biz, there was frequently disagreements on the set as to how we ought to set up a particular shot. It wasn't like huge budget major films, so we did not have Vittorio Storraro on the set expounding on his vision as an autocrat/cinematographer.

We'd go back and forth, but a guy named Armen Minassian (yeah, another one) had a great saying that I try to live by in my current life:

"Before we start moving lights around, why don't we figure out EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE."

Has Merion done that? Don't think so. It sounds like they are approaching their remodel/restoration as neither fish nor fowl without a crystal clear vision.

I can understand Geoff saying that 1930 might not have been the high water mark - and would never have the temerity to disagree with him. However, the further back you go, the more you inevitably end up leaning on photographic evidence of what was there.

Geoff, I can understand your comparison between the Lake Course (Olympic for lurkers) being restored to 1930 and Merion.
But Merion was a jewel in 1930, the Lake was not even the best golf course at Olympic at that time, the Pacific Dunes course was.

Olympic is somewhat unique in that it began as a very marginal track. Merion was superb from day #1. Big difference. I might suggest that Olympic Lake would easily win the "Most Improved" award for the 20th century of the elite golf courses in America.

But back to the main subject:

Patrick, if a club has a clear vision of what it is trying to achieve, and hires an architect that has no intention of carrying out their wishes, then instead of a 2nd opinion, they need to fire the original guy and find somebody who will do their bidding. 2nd opinion? Just toss him out.

Now, that is a dangerous statement, because what the idiot green chairman leading an ignorant membership mandates is often clearly not the correct path.

So, in cases like that, the architect with some disagreement wit the club ought to be able to articulate in a convincing manner why or why not certain work should be done.

It will not always happen, but if we keep carping on GCA, eventually everyone will see it our way.

Failing that, we declare our favorite courses "protected national monuments." Further, I propose that Geoff, Doak, Ron Forse, George Bahto, Patrick, Hanse, Naccarato and everyone else who loves the game except Rees and Jack, form a committee be the sole arbiters of right and wrong with the legal right to throw retarded green chairman in prison if they make the wrong decision.

Gib and Neal Meagher will be the appeals court.

Karl Olson will have veto power.

Ran will run the parole board.  

[John_McMillan]

Patrick M -

Even though aesthetics are a part of plastic surgery, I'd still prefer anyone cutting me with a scalpel to be board certified, and I'd be particularly interested in the professional qualifications of the anestheologist.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib,

What appears to be in question is, did Merion ever have a mission statement ?

If they did, and it was the 1930 golf course, then Mike Cirba's post about the bunkering on # 5 radically departs from that theme, and that deviation should be questioned.

Tom MacWood,

You and your family should be blessed with good health, but many times, when someone has an ongoing serious/critical illness, you often come to the decision tree regarding future treatment/protocol.  Since it is your LIFE, the prudent thing to do, is to seek out qualified experts in the particular field for second or third opinions.

Mike Cirba,

I still can't believe that bunkers are going in next to the creek on # 5.

Craig Rokke,

The need for second opinions may be minimized if you have a clear understanding from the get go, but, sometimes critical decisions which will last for decades need to be reviewed, and a qualified second opinion can't hurt.

Geoff,

I don't know the first thing about the internal workings of the Merion project, but, if I base my evaluation on what has been posted here, it sounds as if there was not a clear direction, or mission statement, and it appears that those in charge may not have been so sure of themselves and the direction to take on this project.  It would be nice if someone really in the know could enlighten us, and address some of our questions.

Based on what Tom Paul and Tom MacWood reported, it would appear that Pine Valley was a collaborative effort with many architects participating.  Did that turn out so bad ?

[ForkaB]

Patrick

My interpretation of "The Tomes of the Two Toms" is that the success of Pine Valley is due to the fact that one person (Crump) with a strong and simple vision (build a golf course to challenge and give pleasure to the best golfers in the world) stuck to that vision, was not afraid of seeking advice from others of high reputation (Colt, Tillignhast, etc.), had the guts to use or not use their advice, as he saw fit, and saw the process as an organic one, not one fixed in time.  This is leadership.

This leadership model for excellence has a number of other examples, both within the world of golf course architecture (e.g. Pinehurst-Ross, Oakmont-Fownes, Dornoch-Sutherland) and without (GE-Welch, Britain-Churchill, Television-Sarnoff, etc.).

From what I hear on this forum, Merion does not have the leadership to engender excellence at this time.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick,

When someone calls and requests that we interview for a new consulting job, we instead ask them to pay us for a day's consulting.  There is a strong tendency for architects to say what the client wants to hear to win the job; but if we're paid to tell them what we think, that second opinion might be of great value.

[I wish we had time to do more of this, but frankly we have all the consulting jobs we have time for.]

Anyway, the big problem with your analogy is that golf architecture is not a science, like medicine, with one right answer.  It's an art, and there can be many differences of opinion.  There is no doubt that a club which asked the opinions of myself and Rees Jones and Tom Fazio and Ron Prichard would likely get a smorgasbord of suggestions.

Would one of them be the right answer, and the others wrong?  Even if there was a right answer, it would be up to the club brass to recognize it, and certainly this is less than 100% foolproof.  

If it was foolproof, none of these clubs would need architectural advice in the first place.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I think this is one of the all-time great posts on GCA. I really do mean that.

Geoff Shackelford, Tom Doak, Tom MacWood, Patrick Mucci, and Matt Ward all deserve Gold Medals. (George Pazin, How come you haven't posted on this? Your Gold Medal awaits you)

Gib,
Cha Cha Cha. (Dance to the music)

Do you all want to know my visions of Hell? That history show Buddy Marruci as one of the great names in golf architecture because of his work at Merion. When this is all over and Buddy starts to utilize this Merion accreditation, how will this make Tom Fazio feel?

The finger should be pointed at these people who have made this horrible decision to alter a monument to the game of Golf. There should be a reckoning, and I hope the deserving get it swift and promptly.

(Note* I have deleted in this post a section of text detailing my visions of this reckoning.)

Merion no longer stands for history, it is now fleeting memory. That makes me ache inside, and this isn't just another case of half-dago dramatics.

This is my opinion, and I know what it is worth.

Tommy Naccarato
Doctor of Electricity
(Just in case I needed a credential)

[Gib_Papazian]

Patrick Esq:
This discussion is pointless until we  ascertain their mission-statement. Agreed.

Professor Naccarato: Cha cha cha??? You might have lost me, but I did some electrical work around the house today and shocked myself twice. Maybe the Randall McMurphy treaments have dulled my brains.

Savant Doak, your quote:
"Would one of them be the right answer, and the others wrong?"

F*ck, if you don't know the answer to that question, how the heck did you write those books??
Of course you know the damned right answer Tom! Speak up! You are not shy in print, why not spit out the truth in real life, up close and personal??? Lots of us look up to you as a sort of renegade icon. if youhave that much consulting work, tell them how the cows ate the cauliflower. If they can't take it, the you can say " I told you so" after they screw it up. But if you don't step up to the plate and face down the idiots, it sort of marginalizes our voice here on GCA.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Your first paragraph is exactly what I had in mind.

In addition, my post wasn't about the totality of the project, but rather about a specific SUBSTANTIVE feature in terms of departure or enhancement.  

Hypothetically, let's go back to # 5 at Merion.  If the mission statement was to return the course to 1930, and the architect proposes the bunkering at # 5, don't I have a responsibility to reject that idea immediately, or seek other professional opinions ?

As you know, your word, Fazio's word, or any prominent architect's word carries a lot of weight and credibility, and the utterence of that word, evidenced by drawings, plans or proposals, immediately gains favor with some on the committee, based soley on its source.

I would guess, at Merion, that there is division amongst the committee, but the architect has spoken, hence the decision is usually weighted in that direction.

Wouldn't it make sense, on this issue, to pay Tom Doak, Ron Forse, Ron Pritchard, Gil Hanse, etc., etc. for their consulting opinion on this issue ?  Wouldn't that be the best protocol for Merion's long term well being ?

I know this is a departure from the accepted protocol in the golf architecture field, but,
had this procedure been implemented years ago, you wouldn't have had the disfiguring of many of the classic golf holes and courses that we have experienced and regret.
It seems to me, to be the only way to insure, the continued health of our great classic golf courses.

Let's take a step back and look at what happens at most golf clubs, with respect to restoration/renovation projects.

Either the green chairman or a special project chairman is appointed to head the project.  This chairman is: a doctor, dentist, executive, CPA, business or retired person.  They usually have little if any substantive golf or architectual experience.
They hire an architect, who provides a plan, that may be questioned or slightly modified, and the project goes forward.

Just like when you go in to the Hospital for a major procedure, the committee and chair have no Patient Advocate representing them.
They need a Patient advocate, one who has been through the process before, one with an enormous amount of knowledge and experience.

What would be ideal in my mind, would be as follows on a major project:

At most clubs, architects are interviewed and one is chosen for the job.  From the get go, I would let it be known, that the club will retain two consulting architects who are not from the pool of architects being considered for the project, and that these two architects will be called in from time to time regarding SUBSTANTIVE issues.

Now, I forgot to add one VITAL factor.
The club really has to be lucky to have a top notch chairman, one who is intelligent, knowledgeable, strong, flexible, and immune or resistant to fads or political pressure.

If consulting architects had been utilized as I proposed perhaps we wouldn't have had good holes and courses ruined over the last 50 years.  I think it's an idea with merit, but that's just my opinion.

[Slag_Bandoon]

  The variables of reasoning are like Rohrshach tests -  the results are always more variables to be requestioned.  

 The dynamics of a committee are unfathomable but the leader of the committee has that "leader" moniker to prove that he is the Alpha dog. Thus they feel compelled to do something to hold rank. This creates poor decision making by reason of wrong motive.  

  The only objective this group should have is to make their course more interesting, more fun and more strategic for playing, not for ranking or TV or because they want to change 'something'.

 I agree with the consultation of historians, and not necessarily architects. (They're a ravenous pack of used car salesmen.   ) "A bunker here would only be driven into by an old lady on Sunday."  

   

[Mike_Young]

Agree with Tommy ..one of the best post..
Geoff even used my favorite word for classics "evolved"..Ans someone mentioned the Valentines; continuity in a supt. is so vital to a club of Merions calibre as would be a "benevolent dictator".

But let me use an analogy.  When a furniture maker build a true reproduction of a piece of period furniture he will use handplanes, dovetail saws etc that were common for that period of construction.  IMHO no matter the architect; the advent of modern earthmoving equipment has done more to destroy "classic " than any architect.  If the chosen architect were required to be on site at least weekly, use at least 50 hand laborers, and and use a one yard bucket to implement his changes(with available site dirt) we might all be more satisfied.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike,
Exactly!

Geoff once wrote and article for Golfweb on the eve of construction of Pebble Beach's 5th hole. Geoff observed the possibilities of the new hole as being the most defining moment in Jack's career as a golf architect, simply to see if he was going to try to build a golf hole like he normally did, or take the time to match the existing evolved architecture as close as possible. Geoff even jokingly made the suggestion that it would be great to see them get out there with a horse and scrapper.

While I'll be the first to say that this would be a great thing to imagine, lets face it, Jack Nicklaus would have never even thought it.  

While the jury still may be out on the new 5th, as far as its compatability with the other 17 holes at Pebble, it is always compared to the original 5th which was in some extent not the best of golf holes so the hole is viewed as somewhat of a success, however the new 5th still encompasses all of the traits of a modern Nicklaus golf hole--High fade to a green guarded by round, very non Pebble Beach-like bunkers.

So why did Pebble Beach not get a second opinion or even a third or fourth?  Just like anything in this modern day and age, they went with a name brand, albiet it one with tournament history at Pebble Beach.

For me it, I see this as a 50/50 deal, but I know that there are a lot more talented architects out there that could have constructed something far more in-line with the exisiting style of architecture, yet, how else would something like this get public acceptance if the "NAME" wasn't tied to it?

Somehow I think anything could have passed, simply because of it being Pebble Beach.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Slag,

By your definition, are you endorsing the alleged Fazio changes to # 5 at Merion ?