Is the Doctor always right ? Second Opinions.

[rkg]

Patrick,

the bunkers are there. I rubbed my eyes a few times to insure I was not hallucinating when I played a few weeks ago.

I assumed they found a photo with those bunkers.  

They are two "almost pot" bunkers along the creek just past the fairway bunker on the right.

If there is no photo record of these they were really reaching to add them.  If there was a photo record someone was smart enough to remove them long ago.

On the Merion note, I heard from a member that the trees in the right side of the quarry on 16 are all gone.

Also gone is the right greenside bunker on 14 as well as all the trees behind the green.

[rkg]

Make that bunker gone on LEFT of 14 green.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick,

Sometimes our second opinion hits a club "upside the head," but it doesn't change their direction very often.

It's hard for me to imagine a club, even an historic club like Merion, instigating a bureaucracy of architects to argue over potential changes.  Certainly the club is aware that many people believe the course is sacred ground; in fact just like Riviera, the more vocal the opponents got, the more determined they became to make their changes.  I sincerely doubt that a "second opinion" there would have made any difference.

Gib, We can call them as we see them, but only history will decide who was right.

[joe zaepfel]

I know nothing of the politics of Merion but it seems to me the ideal person to do anything to Merion would be Hanse and the former head pro Bill Kittleman, who incidentally is an unbelievable perfectionist and student of the architecture of golf.                                          Regarding Mr. Naccarto's reference to the committees composition of doctors etc., I would like to remind him that some have an appreciation of the value of a course, specifically Alister MacKenzie,M.D.

[joe zaepfel]

I apologize to Mr. Naccarto, it was Mr. Mucci who was slamming the doctors on the greens committee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Each club has its unique dynamic, and perhaps you're right that the direction Merion intended to go was predetermined before an architect was chosen for the project.

Sometimes the current "will of the Membership" determines the direction.
That direction can be following a fad or a current guru, keeping up with the Jones's or the "Times".  It would be fascinating to know the inside story from inception to current date.

One of the things I have noticed lately at a number of clubs is the dramatic change in the membership.  It seems that one third to one half of the membership of many clubs is made up of members who joined in the last ten
(10) years.  These members don't have the same sense of tradition or historical connection to the club, and I think that results in a more willing attitude toward change.  

The recent membership, of mostly new golfers, also regard the NAME architects as deities, and I find that troubling.

Kye,

I was hoping that Mike's information was off base, but sadly, your confirmation of the bunkers on # 5 is disappointing to say the least.

[Gib_Papazian]

Joe,
Funny . . . . the most dangerous idiot we ever had on our green committee was a doctor.

Everyone,

I am sitting here ruminating as the to possible reason for bunkers along the creek at Merion #5.

Doesn't that sort of invalidate the whole point of the creek as a hazard? What purpose does it serve? Doesn't that sort of make the diagonal carry less tempting?

I don't know, I have not seen it, but that hole is so viciously hard now, it seems a bit pointless. Because the green slopes hard from right to left, I thought the point was to reward players who skirt the hazard on the right for an easier shot in. . . . . no?

[Gib_Papazian]

Should read: "skirt the hazard on the left."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Zaepfel,

Could you quote the words you allege I used in allegedly slamming doctors on green committees ?

Perhaps a refresher course in reading comprehension should be in your future !

[Slag_Bandoon]

  Maybe they're putting in that bunker because a renegade sheep wandered onto the course during a storm and hollowed out a spot next to the creek and they saw it as a sign from God. Or, the area kept receiving balls and the ground was so hacked up that a bunker was the obvious thing to do. Or, Fazio's (tunnel)vision is wielding dogmatic parables to a gaga group of Signature designer worshippers.  

In Fazio's bio, just printed in The Daily Movement (a dual purpose publication), it states that when he was a Senior in High School he was voted "Most likely to be beaten up..... by a Freshman".  I think he has some pathological revenge issues.  

[Mike_Cirba]

A couple of things...

First of all, I'd concur that the folks on this board should be commended for such thoughtful, articulate posts.  Enough back-patting, however, because it's becoming clear in looking at a situation like Merion that all of our passionate words don't mean squat in the field.  When a monument like Merion can be taken asunder for reasons most of us will never understand, then we haven't progressed one inch from what's happened to many classic courses in the past.

Coupl'a other things...

Patrick; The bunkers on 5 are not under construction...they are completed, in all their circular, pot-like glory.  They also look completely unlike any bunkering at Merion past or....well, even completely different than the new bunkers that have been built at Merion that have their own modern look.  

If there is any question as to the integrity of the work involved, I'd just point out this fact.  Early in the project, I heard that one of the main reasons that Hanse & Kittleman were out of favor is that their meticulous hand-work was taking too long.  The club hoped to have the work completed before the 2005 Amateur.

The Fazio-led bunker work began around November.  It was a pretty rough winter here, certainly not ideal for construction or keeping to timetables.  

By my estimation, the work will be finished in two-three weeks.

All of 'em..

All 100 or so formerly White Faces of Merion...

Those highly-evolved, complex, character-filled, historic, evocative bunkers are virtually all done.

That's either a product of amazing construction efficiency, or....

You be the judge.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

The Merion situation differs from my proposal, because it would appear, based on the posts I've read about Merion, that the club had determined its goals/direction, at the inception of the project, before any architect was chosen.

My point was geared toward the restoration process when the architect comes up with a feature that represents a substantive departure from the design principles of the restoration project, or a member comes up with a feature that represents a substantive enhancement to the design principles of the restoration project, and there is doubt as to how to proceed.

Wouldn't it be beneficial to the project to have outside consulting professionals to review those proposals, thus giving the committee second and third opinions, from disinterested experts ?

[Jeff_McDowell]

Patrick,

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a disinterested consultant.  

It takes a rare architect to tell a course that another architect's work is what they need.

[Willie_Dow]

Perhaps this is a good time to suggest what the evolution of Merion was under the watchful eyes of Valentine and Kittleman.
They were a team, trying to convince a not totally aware membership what was required to maintain the character of Merion East course.  Nothing would happen unless some outside source, like a storm or vandalism created a need for such action.
Abe Martin, my favorite Green Chariman, once told me that when he asked Bill Kittleman what should be done to the East course, he would say "Just go out there and spend some time with her.  She'll tell you what she needs."
I think that tells you how that course evolved, and yes it took 25 years of companionship.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Forty (40) years ago second opinions were rare.  No doctor wanted to counter the diagnosis of another.  Today, if not mandated, it is standard operating procedure to obtain a second or third opinions.

The practice of medicine and the more precise diagnosis of an illness have evolved in the best interest of the patient.

If you were project chairman, and the project architect proposed something that caused you great concern for the best architectual interest of your golf course, wouldn't you like the luxury of consulting independent experts for their particular input and opinion, before you made your final decision, a decision that will be praised or derided for the next thirty (3) years ?

It works in the professions of medicine, law, accounting, so why not architecture ?

[Jeff_McDowell]

Your argument makes one huge assumption - the project chairman recognizes something is awry architecturally.  Most club members don't understand even the most rudimentary concepts of golf course architecture, let alone the finer points about bunker styles.

But let's assume for a second the chairman has a question about a design that has been submitted by an architect.  So the chairman asks the architect about the idea behind the design.  Do you think the architect isn't going to have a good answer?  Do you think the architect won't be able to defend his design?  

No matter how shaky the foundation of the architect's idea, he will be able to defend it quite well.  Especially since the chairman doesn't typically have a design background.

[aclayman]

A couple of things come to mind; Fundamentally, anytime you delagate to an employee, and you don't let him do the job, you undermine the decision to have hired him in the first place. That can only lead to a less than symbiotic reltionship and invariably, the work suffers.

Second or should I say fifthly, Jack's hole at Pebble. The fact that the jury is still out must be a feather in jack's hat.
I remember when the land was first purchased and the news about the new hole was out. Everytime we would walk by I would point out where the new hole was going to be, and how cool it would be, having to draw the ball out over the edge of the cliff. Well, after a boat load of pruning and the cut green, showed me just how much I know. Now it is a pretty hole and the front right bunker is almost round and deep enough to provide a challenge it is the back bunker that reeks havoc on the score and mind, on anyone who finds it.
IMHO the old fifth was the hardest shot on the course. It forced a draw from almost every tee option. A fader such as I (a.k.a. hack) had little chance unless the blocks were all the way on the rightside of the teeing ground. Add that to the severity of the slope on the green and it was a tough uphill one-shoter. The fact that I once came there 2 under and left two over has alot to do with MHO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

You're forgetting one thing about the project chairman.  He still has to live with the changes long after the architect has left the property.  That is a responsibility that weighs heavy on any member or committee person's mind.

But, that responsibility causes him to rely more on the architect, and he can always say, this is what the architect recommended.

It's the tendency not to question or challenge the architect that can lead to the disfiguring of a golf course, not the IQ or inexperience of the project chairman.

While the architect may have an answer to the question, it may not be the absolute or correct answer.  The trouble is, the chairperson can't always evaluate the answer properly and needs professional help on the issue and his eventual decision.  That's where two independent consulting architects could be of great value.

aclayman,

Delegating work to a subordinate doesn't mean you forfeit you supervisory, management, oversight and decision making responsibilities.   Key decisions are almost always reserved for the higher ups, hence, the phrase, "the buck stops here", at the top

[Peter]

Just a quick point on the Merion business. The point man from Fazio who is doing the renovations/remodeling/refurbishing, is the son of a very influential Merion member. This might explain one or two things about the choice of Fazio.

That being said, this design associate, while young, has a couple of strong credentials early in his career. He was the design associate on Pinehurst #4 overhaul, and is currently doing the same type of work to Firestone North. In addition to bunker work at Merion, he is also working on the tweak job to Oak Hill. His design choices are, of course, not absolute, but some of the modifications he has made are immensely strong. I also might add, that the designer in question holds the course in the highest regard, given it is where he learned the game, and would do nothing to tinker with the course unneccesarily.

[Mike_Cirba]

Peter,

Pinehurst #4?  Firestone North?

We're talking about a golf course that's a F8*#))@*# National Historic treasure, are we not?

[Matt_Ward]

When most clubs go the route of egalitarian type decion making you can be sure the final result in any modernization / renovation program, etc, etc, will be some sort of water-downed outcome.

The history of golf is littered with clubs that use the "committee" system and the net result is the following:

1). The birth of too many trees lining fairways clogging the various attack angles envisioned by the original architect.

2). The elimination / addition of bunkers which in many ways have little concrete purpose.

3). The gradual shrinkage of putting surfaces because of mowing / playing patterns.

I can go on and on with the various assundry failures. Suffice to say -- the top clubs maintained their status because of the leadership of one man at the top (i.e. Roberts / ANGC; Fownes / Oakmont; Brown / PVGC.

Once you start a collaborative process inevitably you must have someone (i.e. one person or the famed "committee") mold these different aspects into some sort of consensus. This consensus will then be the product of compromise. Compromise in many ways can rob the course of the creative juices the architect can provide.

I am sure many architects can tell stories of how they "conceded" one element during the decision process in order to preserve their artistic qualities for other holes.

Sad to say but from my perspective true, most people at the top clubs have only at best a VAGUE notion on the very history of their club. Ron Whitten is absolutely on target when he says that paying extra $$ for a return to a club's past is usually something that generally does not engender a favorable response.

Architects are no different than other professions. While they certainly give respect to the works of their peers, they nonetheless believe they have a better vision on what constitutes a superior hole / course. Remember they are competitors and as such will fight for the key jobs available as well they should.

Once a club begins the process in consulting an array of architects the inevitable outcome is an overload of ideas. Pity the poor person / "committee" who must then pick and choose what to do.

The best decision making any club can institute is having one key person sit at the top of the pyramid. Too many clubs have too many people with egos the size of the balloon's that march down 5th Avenue during the Macy's Thanksgiving parade. Each one of these "experts" thinks they know golf course design.

I would advise clubs entertaining discussions on possible changes to their course to follow Gib's advise: What is being achieved with these changes? More importantly, clubs need to place someone with the mind of Yoda in the position of decision making. Too many clubs have presidents whose primary function is to decide what size shrimp works best with the upcoming member / guest event and how long shorts must be!!!

I can argue the point that as much as most people say technology has ruined classic courses the actual fact is that stupidity from within club memberships has been the real death grip for these masterpiece designs. I wish Merion the very best and I keep my fingers-crossed that this superb course will not be enhanced and not ruined.

[T_MacWood]

Peter
I'm not sure the projects you sited will comfort too many. The one completed project, #4, has recieved mixed reviews and thats being kind.

All the good intentions in the world are not enough. Here at Ohio State no one can question the intentions of Weiskopf and Hurdzan, they love the golf course, but the minimal work they have performed (#17) and the work Weiskopf is planning is saddening. And were talking about a course, OSU, that could use a helping hand, not a national treasure like Merion.

And what do you mean by 'some of the modifications he has made are immensely strong,' that sounds like some are, some are not (for example Pinehurst #4-esque pot bunkers on the 5th) -- that's OK for a local muni, not OK for Merion. Is he also responsible for the new look of the recontructed bunkers?

[Craig_Rokke]

100's of posts into the Merion situation,
Mr Dow mentions a Kittleman comment
that brings things into focus more than anything I've yet heard. What a poignant,
resonating thought about the East Course.

[Hugh Wilson]

The son of an influential member?  Sum total experience - Pinehurst #4 and Firestone North?  Ahhhh..I see...boning him up on the classics, huh?

Couldn't they have forked up a stipend to send the kid to the British Isles for a few months first?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Ward,

If what you say is true, then how did all those great old holes and courses get disfigured

It was the consulting architect retained by the club that is responsible for the changes.

It would appear that your position, and the position of others is to follow the architects directive, BLINDLY.  I don't subscibe to that theory, in golf or in medicine.

I will show you an architects rendering of a redo of PHCC.  You will not believe it.  
I fought ferociously to defeat this plan, which would have ruined our Tucker design from 1927, a design you are familiar with, that most people love.  It was radical, and would have ruined a very good golf course, in my opinion.  

You and others keep missing my point, and should reread my original post, especially the point about a strong, capable project chairman.

Let me say that I am not a believer in consensus management.